~ ‘Repatriation’ of the Constitution

A DANGEROUS HOAX.

“ A RE you in favor of Cana-
da acquiring the right to
amend its

without having to get the ap-

proval of the British parlia-
ment?”

The obvious answer is—yes.

“Well, then, when the prime

ministers of all the 10 provinc-
es, including Jean Lesage of
Quebec, mind you, unanimously
agree with the prime minister
of Canada on a formula for. re-
patriation and amendment of
the British North America Act,
which is basically Canada’s con-
stitution, why do you object?”

Hold on, there, not so fast.

First of all, what is this talk
of “repatriation” of the BNA
Act? Wasn’t it always the Brit-
ish North America Act? Using
the word “repatriation” gives
the impression that originally
the Canadian people had the
right to amend their constitu-
tion; this right was appropriated
somehow by the British parlia-
ment and now we must “repat-
riate” it, return it to Canada.
But the truth is that from the
very beginning there was no
provision for amendment of the
BNA Act. Interpretation of the
act was the prerogative of the
Privy Council of the British
parliament. Later provisions
were made for amendment of
some sections of the, BNA Act
in Canada.

€

But far more important is the
fact that the formula proposed
for amending the BNA Act in
Canada is being cleverly, if hast-

Constitution, -

ily, introduced in order to ob-
struct the growing movement,
‘in French Canada especially but
also in English Canada, for a
new constitution.

The Royal Commission on
Bilingualism and Biculturalism
found out, at the very beginning
of its hearings, that it could not
consider the problems of lan-
guage and culture in Canada
without also considering the
whole constitutional structure
of our country. The Quebec
Legislative Assembly set up a
Committee on the Constitution
to ascertain what French Cana-
da wants by way of changes in
the constitutional regime. Al-
most every submission to this
latter committee so far has de-
manded a new constitution for
Canada or, in some cases, the
complete separation of Quebec.

The BNA Act cannot be
“amended” to correspond with
present-day Canada. It treats
Canada as a collection of prov-
inces with distinct autonomous
rights, but subordinated to a
“federal” government.

It does not recognize that
Canada is made up of two na-
tions (as well as of many ethnic

SAM WALSH shows why the pro-
posal to amend the British North
America Act is really aimed at
thwarting the movement for a genu-
ine Canadian constitution.

groups in addition to the origin-
al Indian and Arctic peoples).
It does not, therefore, recognize
the right to self-determination
which is acknowledged today as
the prerogative of all nations,
whether they exist in a single
nation state, a bi-national state
or.a multi-national state.

.The BNA: Act is an expres-
sion — in modified form, with
many compromises, but never-
theless essentially an expres-
sion — of the British conquest
of French Canada. No “amend-
ments” to this constitution for
Canada can alter this funda-
mental basis.

©
If Canada is not to be torn
and divided, the two nations of
Canada must work out an en-
tirely new constitution — made

in Canada and amendable only
in Canada. This

recognition of the fact that
there are two equal nations in
Canada each having the sover-
eign right to decide which of
its rights it wishes to retain as
its sole prerogative and which
it is ready and willing to pool

constitution _
must be based on the explicit

with. those of the other nation
in a confederal government.

This confederal government

_ must itself be so constituted as

to reflect fully the equality of
the two nations. At the same

time the new constitution must

recognize the special rights of

the Indian and Arctic peoples as

well as the democratic rights of

‘language and culture of all eth-

nic groups.

The necessity for French
Canada to obtain such a consti-
tution. should be quite clear.
Every effort to hinder its at-
tainment encourages the idea of
separatism. (“The English Can-
adians don’t want to live with
us on the basis of recognizing
us as a nation, equal in rights
to them, even though smaller
in population. Let’s separate.’’)

But English Canada also needs
such a new constitution. The
division into provinces, all
treated as equal, does not take
into account that some are rich
in natural resources and indus-
try while others are poor. Ef-
forts to improve and equalize
the development of the indus-
trial, economic and social life
of the English Canadian nation
divided into nine provinces
often are frustrated by the
fact that the French Can-
adian nation, organized prim-
arily in one province, Que-
bec, has different objectives,
arising from its inferior place
in the history of Canada, and
refuses to be submerged by an
artificial, built-in 9-1 majority.
Hence for English Canada as
well, no amendment to the BNA

Act can disentangle it I

basic provisions of 4
which, by treating Queb!
province like each of ¥
lish-speaking provinces, 7
the free development ©
two nations on the bas
free and voluntary asso

The indecent haste to?
the provincial legislatl
well as the federal Pal!
rush through the “repalll
legislation is a delibel!
tempt’ to obstruct and)
the growing demand fol)
constitution. Under the)
otic guise of “repatrial!
will impose a_ straitja@
the present constitution®
ture of Canada.

What a floodlight it 5)
the real intentions of ?
Lesage of Quebec W!
speaks of becoming “m@
our own house.” His su
this “repatriation” sell-0!
who he thinks should ?
ters in our house; in
Certainly not the Fret!
adian people. The same,
said of the prime m
the poorer English
provinces who are ta
with this deceptive
cherous deal.

The people of both |
and English Canada Si).
mand that- our legisla)
on the questions of im?)
to the people and stop’
spokes in the wheel of @
ing movement for @ 7)
mocratic constitution ©
ada. af

| &

Liberals and Tories in trouble — what now |

,JT IS doubtful if ever before
in Canadian history have the
two old-line parties been in

so much trouble.

The Liberals are beset by
scandals. Some commentators
are telling us that the Canadian
people are qquite indifferent to
these allegations of corruption
which are filling the papers. If
_that were true it would be a
danger signal in itself, reveal-
ing the depths to which parlia-
mentary government has sunk
in the estimation of Canadians.

Events more likely will show
that wide sections of Canadians
will be by no means indifferent
if the current enquiries prove
that executive and parliamen-
tary assistants, even ministers,
are in fact under the influence
of criminal elements.

The Tories are torn asunder
by the challenge to John Dief-
enbaker’s leadership. The re-
ported close vote at last week’s
national executive meeting is
evidence that the party is split
down the middle and will not
be able to restore full, whole-
hearted unity around Diefen-
baker.

NELSON CLARKE says current po-
litical crisis can result in a right-
wing threat or an Opportunity for
big gains by progressives.

And all this cannot be sepa-
rated from the developing poli-
tical crisis of our country, in-
cluding the crisis in relation-
ships between French and Eng-
lish Canada, a

Diefenbaker is still sold on
the theory of “winning without
Quebec.” He has already shown,
on the flag issue, that in his
hunger for power he is quite

ready to cater to English Can- ~

adian prejudice against French
Canada. He may well plunge
more deeply into the mire, and
use the scandals surrounding
individual French-speaking Lib-
erals as a smear against the
French Canadian people as a
whole. It is hard to imagine any-
thing more dangerous to the

future of Canada than such
would be chauvinism.

Yet the Liberals have no an-
Swers to the problem of Confe-
deration, and more and more
it becomes clear that neither do
they have answers to the fun-
damental problems of the Can-
adian economy,

Where, for example, is the
plan to provide jobs - for the
1,500,000 people who will be
coming into the labor market by
1970? And what are the Liberals
doing to develop new markets
for the products of Canadian
industry and agriculture? What
is their foreign policy, other
than silence, on U.S, crimes in
Vietnam, and submission to US,
pressures on a joint nuclear

force that would bring in the
West German revenge-seekers?

Little wonder that dissatis-
faction is growing with both
old paries.

But it is not enough for pro-
gressives to sit back and enjoy
the discomfiture of the Grits
and Tories.

This is the kind of a situa-
tion in which right-wing dema-

-gogues could come forward to

take advantage of the frustra-
tion and disgust of the people.
This possibility is behind the

‘call of Socred’s Robert Thomp-

son for a new re-grouping of
Conservative forces on the right.
There could develop in_ this
country a new political line-up
that would be akin to, and as
dangerous as, Goldwaterism in
the United States.

The ability to answer that
threat and to give our country
a new sense of direction lies
with the labor and progressive
movement. If there is danger of
a right-wing realignment, there
is also very much present in the
situation the prospect of elect-
ing to the next House of Com-

February 19, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUN

mons a powerful bloc ©
gressive MP’s, 4
Recent byelection ré f
the opinions of most ©)
political observers point"
prospects for New D@
Party gains in the election
ever it comes. :-
The realization of th,
pects depends in large ©
on how the NDP will 5?
on all the issues fac!
country, including 2 _
stand for a new forelé!
breaking with U.S. 0M
for a new democratic ©
tion based on equality
two nations, and for b®
ures to curb the monoP™
advance the well-beiné
people.

For its part, the chit
Party will be very mu
forefront of the st
such policies, in the
make Parliament wor
people, to end the pre?
politicking and to opP' oft
election for which th@,)
need. and which W,
serve the narrow Pp?
vantage of either of
old-line parties.