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%