Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - April 21, 1981, Winnipeg, Manitoba 6 Winnipeg free press tuesday april published and printed six Days a week at 300 Canton Street. Winnipeg r3c 3c1 by Canadian newspapers company limited Telephone 943-9331 second class mall registration number 0286 Winnipeg free press Freedom of Trade Equality of civil rights Liberty of religion the recipe for separatism Donald Nicol publisher John Dafoe Edi Loyial Paau Eruol Murray Burt managing Eil Itoi editorials prime minister Trudeau s criticism of the provincial premiers new constitutional proposals May or May not qualify in Premier Lyon s terms As a big one thing is certain however. Or. Trudeau s description of what would happen if the premiers amending formula were adopted has nothing at All to do with the truth. Or. Trudeau claims that the premiers proposal which would give provinces the right to opt out of constitutional amendments which affected their Powers and privileges would be a recipe for separatism that it would turn Canada into a confederation of shopping centres or a Loose confederation of special statuses in various it would of course do nothing of the sort. To begin with it could not make Canada any looser a federation than it is today because it would do nothing to alter the existing division of Powers. The opting out provisions would affect Only new constitutional changes which removed Powers from the provinces and gave them to either the Federal govern ments or the courts. The proposal could As the prime minister claims Lead to different constitutional provisions in different provinces the so called Chequer Board effect. But in practical terms the variations would be Likely to be minimal arid Short lived. Vast differences would occur Only if the Federal govern ment were planning a major raid on provincial Powers shifting Large areas of provincial jurisdiction to. Ottawa but under the premiers provinces representing half the population of Canada would have to agree to any constitutional amendments. The likelihood that seven provinces could Ever be a dramatic reduction in their own Powers is Remote. The one occasion where that might happen would be a resource raid by the majority of populous provinces on one or two smaller ones. In that event the. Opting out provision would provide a Neces sary safeguard. Areas opting out would be difficult to do and More difficult to maintain. If a provincial government opted out of a constitutional change which was seen to be offering visible benefits to the other nine it would face political pressure to get in on a Good thing. If it failed to do so it could be replaced by a government that would. Or. Tradeau knows All this of course since virtually every constitutional plan he has put Forward since 1968 has included one or More provisions which would have led to the Chequer Board Canada he now professes to find so abhor rent. The Victoria charter of 1971 entrenched minority language rights in five provinces and permitted the rest of opt in when and if they chose. The letter which or. Trudeau wrote to the provincial premiers in 1977 proposed that Freedom of Choice in education be entrenched in every province except Quebec which would be allowed to opt in whenever it Felt More culturally secure. The constitutional amendment Bill of 1978 provided according to a summary prepared by the prime minister s office that the proposed charter of rights and freedoms would be binding on the Federal government parliament and All Federal institutions As soon As it becomes Law. It would become binding on the provinces As and when they see fit to opt in if that sort of thing will really destroy confederation then or. Trudeau has been hell Bent on breaking up the country for the past decade. In fact of course a reasonable constitutional flexibility and a decent regard for consensus offer the Best Hope of keeping the country together. It is or. Trudeau new Guise As rigid Centralizer who threatens the Unity of the country. I the Holiday garbage a Challenge to extremists the a emptied garbage cans Are probably the most visible reminder to Manitoban that easter monday is a Holiday but mainly for those who work for some level of government. The Winni Eggers who hauled their garbage cans into pickup position before setting but for Wor moriday morning were entitled to be annoyed that they were required to work while their employees the civil servants Day off they should have listened to the radio announcements that told people whose garbage would normally have been picked up last Friday that they had to find space for another four Days refuse. If they listened to those announcements on Csc their annoyance would have been increased if they had realized that the Crown corporation s employees also fad the Day off and those at work were being paid overtime rates. Public employees have fought a. Long Battle for Equality and for a change from the time when Security of employment was often traded for lower salaries and conditions less favourable than those offered in the private sector. No better evidence can be found of their absolute Victory than in the existence for a select few of the easter monday Holiday elected members of the legislature who devise programs and provide the civil service jobs must work while the employees have the Day off or collect overtime rates. Employees of Banks department stores and garages whose taxes pay the civil servants must work while those collecting the salaries have the Day off. There was a time when the Public servants were not alone. Banks used to be closed easter monday. That practice ended in 1966. Schools used to be closed but was. The fixed Spring break period replaced the older . As late As 1974 the Post office was not Only open monday but also provided limited service on Good Friday. Three years later the Post office threw Ira the Towel on the Issue and now closes for All practical purposes from thursday evening until tuesday morning. As late As 1976 civic employees including garbage Collee worked on easter monday along with everyone else. Liat was before they realized that their employer the Public was a s Oft touch. Abusing human rights Law the Canadian human rights act. May be in need of More Teeth but it would be unfortunate if it were provided with clout Only so that it could trample on a legitimate business promotion. Air Canada s family discount fares have been found in violation of the act by a one Man tribunal because they apply Only to members of travelling together and not to groups that Lack official or unofficial family status. Specifically the ruling said that a Vancouver woman s human rights had been violated because the airline refused to Grant a family discount when she travelled with a companion who was not her husband violating the Section of the act which prohibits discrimination on the basis of marital status by any federally regulated service. In reality the airline is quite practical and enlightened on the Issue. The airline Grants family discounts to people who have a relationship recognized in Law or in common Law. It also Grants discounts to unrelated people who travel in groups Large enough to qualify. It got into trouble when it refused the discount where its stated rules were openly broken. It is cases like this that can give human rights Laws a bad reputation. It appears that the main object of the exercise was not to get the discount but to make it impossible for the airline to encourage family travel by offering the discount. If the human rights act had the Teeth necessary to enforce this opinion of a single arbitrator the enforcement would do More to harm air Canada s relations with its customers than years of Good service could overcome. By . Wilson special to the free press Ottawa agreement on a constitutional amending formula by eight of 10 provinces during a period of tension deserves Nova Scotia s Premier John Buchanan s description As a most substantial if the prospects were better that reason and moderation would prevail in this dispute torn country their signing of the agreement during a simple dignified ceremony in Ottawa would have been an historic occasion of great consequence because it offered to conciliatory men the Chance to move Forward in Harmony on the important matter of Patria Tion of the Constitution. Beyond that it offered a new opening for discussion and negotiation of other constitutional questions. Extremism the Federal government however has embarked on a course of extremism and predictably its first knee Jerk reaction coming from Jean Chretien was rejection and insistence that the Central administration feels More than Ever justified in its unilateral course. Since the prime minister had earlier attempted to ridicule the provincial agreement out of existence questioned the veracity of the premiers and created artificial misunderstandings Over a meeting it was not to be expected that first Federal reactions would be any thing but negative. The brutal fact is that provincial agreement is utterly unwelcome to the Federal government unless it includes unconditional surren Der. In reality this would be an Opportunity for reasonable men and it is sad to see the attempts to Brush it aside. To do so the Ottawa extremists have to Brush aside As Well a Good Deal of constitutional history and some hard political reality. The myth of a half Century of constitutional frustration was invented to hide the fact that there has actually been agreement on serious amendments of substance during that period. This untruthful myth has been used to justify unilateral Federal action in matters affecting the Powers of other governments and against both their will and the disapproval of More than half the Canadian population. The political reality ignored by or. Chretien and his colleagues is that the tensions of the last months would be More Likely to increase the chances of agreement in a fresh round of negotiation than to diminish them. This has been True of the Tough Federal line All along. As a negotiating tactic aimed at producing agreement pressure is often justified. But there has been no attempt to use it that Way. Two imperatives the premiers formula meets the two imperatives of any amending proce Dure it is flexible enough to permit change and at the same time it offers provinces and regions a sense of Security against any threat to their vital interests. Provision that future constitutional change would require the agreement of the Federal parliament and seven prov inces including More than half the population is reasonable provided the essential sense of Security is achieved. That would be done through the so called opting out clause. The name is unfortunate because it really involves a form of veto. All of the recent Federal proposals for an amending formula have offered both Quebec and Ontario a veto Over change in the latest version a Power they would enjoy in perpetuity regard less of future population changes. More moderate the proposal from the premiers is much More moderate. It would give any province a veto Only Over a change reducing its Powers and jurisdiction within its own boundaries. No province would have a veto Over change for the country As a whole if it met the Neces sary other requirements. No province not even Quebec or Ontario would have any sort of veto ii us own Powers and jurisdiction were not reduced by a proposed change. This is a far less extreme proposition than the veto Power in perpetuity which the Federal government seeks for Quebec and on Tario regarding changes of any sort whether their Powers were reduced or not. But it is predictable that the prefer ence in Ottawa will be for the extreme position not the moderate one. Proba Bly the earlier attacks that it would produce a Chequer Board Canada will be renewed. Is that worse in the very limited Way in which it could happen than a Power in the hands of two provinces to be Able forever to thwart proposed changes desired by the rest of the country which they did not like it in fact the limited opting out Power would probably rarely if Ever be used. It is not Likely that seven provinces would gang up on one or two others and attempt to Force on them some change they Felt was seriously harmful to their justified interests. The importance of the proposal lies in the sense of Security it would provide and that is one of the essentials for any Wise amending for Mula. No to Trudeau the supreme court of Canada will make a decision on the legality of unilateral Federal action on the Constitution not on whether that action is the Best course for the country. To live is to face choices but to do everything that is Legal would be foolish indeed. It is within the Law to drink oneself into a stupor every Day of the week. But is it Wise it is within the Law to walk past a person stricken in the Street and do nothing to alleviate that person s mis Ery. But is it right it is within the Law for a member of a family to be de manding selfish and non productive. But is it fair the courts can give us an opinion on whether or not a Given action is within the Law we ourselves must decide whether or not it is right or Wise or fair. Those of us who consider or. Tru Deau s constitutional proposals neither right nor Wise nor fair but who support Patria Tion with a workable amending formula believe that with that Amend ing formula All partners in the confederation could work to provide a care fully constructed Constitution acceptable in every Region of the coun try. We ask for time to make these fundamental changes thoughtfully and to have them approved by legislators who have a mandate for constitutional change and not by a parliament elected after a Campaign where the main Issue was cheap gasoline. For parliament to pass a charter of rights As riddled with vague phraseology As is the one pro posed is for parliament to abrogate its responsibility leaving it up to the courts to figure out what the legislators mean. If we act in haste we shall indeed repent at Leisure. We the opponents of the Trudeau amendments Are not yet beaten. If the supreme court however rules in favour of the Federal govern ment then sadly ironically it will be in the British parliament alone that this constitutional juggernaut can be derailed. Because it was or. Trudeau who transferred from Canada to Britain the final decision on sweeping Constitution Al changes it is with some Justice that the Achilles Heel of the whole Federal game plan May turn out to be this bold trick to set up the British parliament As the tool to Force headlong changes on the Canadian people. The British have said that passage of the Resolution letters the Winnipeg free press welcomes letters from readers. Writers must give their name and address. The author s name will be used and letters Are subject to editing. Success the goal not gasohol the supreme court Legal May not be right would be very difficult if there is Strong opposition in Canada. Or. Trudeau and his followers no doubt recognize their weakness at this juncture and have gone to great pains to keep us quiet to make us think our resistance is futile. Why else did the prime minister Heap scorn on anyone who would go crawling to Westminster to state divergent views meanwhile Back in London the feds were crawling All Over the place Why other than to give legitimacy to the Federal Case in the eyes of the British was it necessary to get the nip on Side when the liberals Al ready had a Clear majority in the House of commons Why else did or. To ideas and or. Macguigan find it necessary to alter the truth when the British expressed their extreme reluctance to meddle in Canadian affairs the unfortunate British Only want an honourable Safe route out of this quagmire where they find themselves dumped. If there is visible evidence of Strong Public opposition to the Trudeau amendments then the British cannot conclude that complying with the Federal request is the path to future Good relations with Canada. For this reason the last thing the Trudeau forces want right now is a loud Public outcry. Quiescence will be interpreted As acquiescence by the British. Those of us who Are in favour of Canadian Unity in favour of human rights but not the Hodgepodge that is the current in favour of con census and co operation those of us opposed to the Trudeau package must stand up and be counted now or else be Content to live with the fruit of our apathy. Whatever decision the supreme court reaches on the legality of unilateral Federal action the response to the Trudeau amendments in Canada and in Britain should still be Tena Gough Guelph Ontario actor s showcase last fall i took my then four year old daughter to see the production of Snow White. There is a dearth of live entertainment available for children and having been a theatre major i have an interest in seeing such productions. My daughter enjoyed the production be cause of the Clever use of audience involvement. The costumes and sets were quite adequate. Personally i found the acting abysmal. As a Parent and As someone interested in the Quality of theatre i have always Felt that overacting and playing Down to the level of children Are poor practices theatrically and psychologically. I decided i would never go again. However Spring break rolled around my children saw the advertisements and i ventured out once again this time with four children aged three and a half to five and a half. This time the children did not enjoy the program either. It was impossible for them to follow the confusing plot line and the acting was As appalling As before. I can quite sympathize with Tony Pydee artistic director in his wish for adequate funding actors showcase trapped in Grey area of funding free press april however the sets and costumes which Are the costly items Are quite satisfactory. Good acting costs nothing but a director s vision and actors hard work and integrity. People come to actors showcase be cause they Are in a sense a captive audience. Actors showcase is the Only theatre offered for children people would like to regard it As satisfactory since it is All they have. Let us Hope that or. Pydee will receive his funding and provide Good theatre for children. Claire Ladd Winnipeg birthday mrs. E. Andresen Winnipeg born Walcott Iowa u.s.a., april i i re the article Joel stays True to his Punk roots free press april two reporters were assigned who must have Felt that Billy Joel deserved the kind of coverage that warrants that amount of expense. I do not personally know or. Joel although i teach his song just the Way you Are to my band students at Gordon Bell High school. It is a pleas ant Little tune and my students enjoy it. However what i am seriously concerned about is the implication that it is All right to be a Punk if you Are a Success. In the article there is Little if anything to encourage our kids today to pursue goals that require some Effort and that Good honest hard work Effort brings its Reward even if it is not in millions of dollars. Or. Joel is pictured carrying a switchblade knife and is portrayed As someone who is a Punk but a Success. We live in a society that is saturated with sex violence and drugs and Many of our Young people Are suffering from a Lack of direction and purpose. How Many of our children do you think should follow the lifestyle of or. Joel where Are the attitudes of our adult generation going to take our youngsters when we seem to condone any kind of behaviour As Long As Success is the goal Doug m. Sly Winnipeg outlaw sex our recent exposure to the unfortunate and near tragic event in washing ton concerning president Ronald Rea. Gan and his party has inevitably generated renewed cries from the proponents of More restrictive firearms control in our country. If their course is the right one confiscation of All firearms should solve the problem. It then follows the solution to the horrendous crime of rape would be to outlaw by legislation All sex in our society. I say instead hang the rapists. Theodore n. Chick Winnipeg in the free press of april 10, i read an article entitled brazilians Happy Over gasohol having read the article i was surprised and disappointed. The Story was really about alcohol tests and not about gasohol tests. The difference is of the greatest significance since gasohol containing Only 10 per cent of alcohol leaves the user with 90 per cent of the problems associated with gasoline. Of course i at once dismiss any notion that there was an intent to mislead the mass of casual readers and keep them focussed on gasohol. I equally dismiss the idea that the writer s Powers of analysis were faulty. However it is understandable that in the Rush to print there could be momentary lapses of attention that is what May Well have happened in this Case. Now a massive move toward alcohol As a motor fuel in a country As vast wealthy and populous As Brazil is an event of great interest. 1 therefore Hope that you will find it possible to reprint that Story with its corrected headline brazilians Happy Over alcohol George Otwell Winnipeg " t Kcf if you hate break and enter so much Why Don t Yon return to violent crime like everyone i i i ;