By Pierre Elliot Trudeau
LANGUAGE , EDUCATION AND THE VETO
Mr. Bouchard's assertion:
The Constitution Act of 1982 "reduced Quebec's
powers in the fields of language and education--- Rene Leveque
refused it. Claude Ryan refused it . The National Assembly refused
it." (Oct. 25, l995. 7pm., Radio-Canada television)
THE FACTS
In the areas of language and education, the Constitution
Act of 1982 enshrined precisely the "traditional requests
from Quebec". Here is what Claude Ryan had to say about it
the day after Lucien Bouchard made the above comment. "The
Constitution Act of 1982 is not as dreadful as some like to pretend.
It is a very reasonable law: it gave a Charter of Rights to all
Canadians, Quebecers and others alike, and it reinforced the protection
of linguistic rights for francophones throughout Canada."
And elsewhere: "I heard Mr. Bouchard last night saying that
(the Constitution of 1982 ) had stripped Quebec of important rights
in language and education. In my humble opinion, it's not true.
It's just not true."
While he disapproved of the "fact that the act
had been enacted without Quebec's signature" Claude Ryan
recognized that "objectively, the changes brought about by
the act of 1982 were very good changes, except where the amending
formula is concerned." Oct.26,1995. Interview with Bernard
Derome, Radio Canada television and Chateau Frontenac, RDI).
I, myself, shared Mr. Ryan's reservation with regard
to the amending formula. But it should be remembered that the
formula used in the constitution of l982 was based on the one
proposed by Mr. Levesque and the seven other provinces that formed
the Gang of Eight. This formula gave no veto to Quebec while the
one proposed by my government included a veto.
Thus on Dec.2,l981, Le Devoir published my reply to a letter from
Premier Levesque dated Nov.25,l981, requesting a veto for Quebec.
I said, in part: "Between l971 and Nov.5, l981 every government
I headed put forth an amending formula which would have given
Quebec a veto. We only abandoned the principle after you had done
so yourself" by signing the Accord of the Eight and after
"you had once again proposed (this accord) during our sessions
of Nov.2,3,4 and 5."
Furthermore, failing that veto, the Accord of the
Eight gave the provinces a right to opt out which was enshrined
in section 38 (3) of the Constitution Act of 1982. This allows
each province to refuse any constitutional change that would diminish
its "legislative jurisdiction" or its "rights and
privileges".
Mr. Bouchard is showing that he knows nothing about
the 1982 constitution when he alleges that the Chretien government
- after a No vote - will want "to perpetuate the current
situation which gives the federal apparatus and the English-speaking
provinces… the power to impose anything they want on Quebec."
(Oct 17,1995, 7:25 p.m., Westin Hotel, Montreal.)
Such stupid allegations- and they were legion- flow
more from hallucination than from the science of politics.
THE 1982 PATRIATION
Mr. Bouchard's assertion:
"In 1982, the constitution was patriated against
our will …. Because the interests of English Canada impelled
them to act in this fashion." (Oct. 27, l995,-Radio Canada
TV)
THE FACTS
Mr. Bouchard certainly has a strange way of interpreting
our constitutional history! Wasn't it rather the French Canadians
who had traditionally striven to free themselves from colonial
ties with Great Britain by patriating the Canadian Constitution
from London? As for "interests", those of the predominately
English provinces were generally the same as Quebec's: to exchange
their consent to patriation for increased provincial powers.
Since 1927, every Canadian government , from that
of MacKenzie King to that of Bennett, St. Laurent, Diefenbaker
and Pearson, has tried in vain to persuade the provinces to end
this vestige of colonialism. All had failed and Canada was the
only country in the world to have as its constitution a law located
in another country which could be amended, for the most part,
only by the other country. In 1982, we were emerging from an extensive
constitutional debate begun in l967 by the provinces. Canadian
citizens had had enough of it and the matter needed to be laid
to rest.
-115 years after becoming a country, Canada still
depended upon London's consent to amend its constitution. Could
Canada face yet another defeat when the only opposition to patriation
came from a provincial government set upon destroying the country?
Would the project have to grind to a halt because of an adversary
who wanted sovereignty for his province, but who refused it for
his country?
Three provinces, including Quebec, had asked the
Supreme Court of Canada to define the rules of the constitutional
game. The ruling was that patriation could happen only in the
presence of a "substantial level of provincial consent".
This requirement was amply satisfied with nine provinces out of
10 giving their consent.
Quebec's premier was opposed to patriation but, as
the rules of the above-mentioned game stated, he had no veto.
In any case he had explicitly waived this veto on signing the Accord
of the Eight. It was clear that his government wanted nothing
to do with a project that could be advantageous to the Canadian
federation.
Moreover 70 of the 75 members elected to the federal
parliament by Quebec had voted for patriating the constitution
while in Quebec's national assembly, 38 members - led by Mr. Ryan
- out of l08 had voted on December 1, l981, which for all practical
purposes , slammed the door on current efforts to seek compromises.
Thus less than 40% of all elected representatives
of Quebec were opposed to the constitutional agreement. One may
dispute this arithmetic analysis by arguing that Quebec's government
is the only body allowed to speak for Quebecer's, but this claim
is the very essence of separatism. If one believes in Canada,
one must equally believe that , in matters constitutional, Quebec
members elected to the Canadian Parliament represented Quebec's
electorate just as much as the members of the Quebec National
Assembly did.
Furthermore, polls have shown that the patriation
of the constitution was not being rejected by the people. In March
1992, a CROP poll indicated that 48 percent of Quebecers blamed
Mr. Levesque's government for refusing to sign the accord, while
only 32 per cent agreed with it. In June of the same year, a Gallup
poll found 49% of Quebecers agreed with the Constitution Act and
only 16 per cent disapproved.
-------------------------------------------
NOTES
In international usage the term "Night
of The Long Knives" refers to Hitler's execution of 1000 leaders and member of the Nazi
S.A. Brownshirts in June , l934 . With this slaughter the Gestapo destroyed Hitler's internal
opposition..
- Originally published in the Montreal Gazette,
Feb 3, l996.
