Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - April 30, 1981, Winnipeg, Manitoba Focus All eyes will be on supreme court by Peter Thomson Ottawa editor supreme court of Canada this week was launched toward the most important decision it has Ever made. The specific Issue is whether the Federal government can act unilaterally to Patriate the Canadian Constitution with substantive amendments and without consent of the provinces. The decision of the nine supreme court judges expected about june 1, will go farther in defining the degree of federalism in Canada than has any other action since passage of the Brit ish North America act in Britain in 1867. Eight provinces led by Manitoba Are challenging the Federal govern ment s right to act unilaterally. They contend that a convention exists re cognized in Law to the effect that provincial government consent is required for any changes affecting provincial jurisdiction As defined in the ban act and that the British Parlia. Ment not Only cannot legislate in areas affecting provincial jurisdiction with out their consent but in fact is a trustee bound to protect provincial sovereignty. The Federal government supported by Ontario and new Brunswick takes the position that the Only acceptable Way of making constitutional change is through a joint address by Canada s Federal parliament to the British parliament and that there Are precedents of constitutional amendments having been made without provincial consent. In preliminary skirmishes the Feder Al position has a narrow Edge. The Manitoba court of Appeal ruled 3-2 in Ottawa s favor the newfound land supreme court ruled 3-0 in favor of the provincial position and the a peal court of Quebec ruled 4-1 in favor of the Federal government s position. Based on the results in earlier rounds it appears highly probable that the Canadian supreme court will arrive at a split decision. Few Are prepared to predict which Way it will go. But everyone is aware of the immedi ate implications. If Ottawa wins on All counts there will be a two Day debate on the Constitution Resolution in parliament it will be forwarded to Britain where there is a Good Chance it will be passed in time to have the Canadian Constitution a treated by july 1. That has been tru Deau s deadline since the constitutional debate began dominating our Public affairs 11 months ago. If the provinces win on their main Points the whole Federal Effort of the past year will have been wasted. It will be either Back to the drawing Board for the feds or possibly Quick acceptance of the provinces proposal for Patria Tion with a different amending formula but no charter of rights. Variations of those results Are Possi ble. The supreme court might Rule that parts of the Trudeau charter of rights Are Ultra Vires because they infringe on provincial sovereignty but decide that the Patria Tion plan and parts of the charter can proceed. Trudeau refused to make a reference to the supreme court Early in the game on the grounds that what his govern ment was seeking to do was a political Issue not a Legal one. That View is widely supported. But it is because of political realities of today and implications of the constitutional Resolution for the future that provinces have sought their Only re courts defend their political integrity the Federal government has pursued its constitutional objective despite the non concurrence of eight provinces and a majority of the Canadian people. The political reality is that with a majority in the House of commons garnered almost entirely from Ontario and Quebec the Federal liberals Are Well on their Way to re shaping the Canadian federation. There has been nothing Short of going to the courts that four Western provinces three Atlantic provinces and Quebec have been Able to do to Stop the process. In other words there is no political Way that aspirations of minorities be they regional or linguistic minorities can Stop a government which never mentioned constitutional Reform in its last election Campaign took to the notion after achieving a majority for other reasons. In the Canadian system there is no regional political Protection derived from a Senate that is appointed for partisan reasons and has never taken the role of protecting regional Minori ties As happens in other Federal states. Because they cannot find Protection in the political process the provinces have had to go to the courts and base the defence of their jurisdiction on the Law. There Are those who suggest that because the supreme court is appointed by the prime minister and six of the nine justices have been appointed by Trudeau there is a Strong possibility that the ruling will support the Federal position. That is not to suggest that the judges will be influenced by political feelings of the Day Only that they were undoubtedly appointed because their earlier interpretations of constitutional Law commended them to the Federal government. Federally appointed though it is the supreme court is the last line of de Fence for provinces seeking to defend their Power. And that Points up the awesome importance of the decision to be rendered. If for example the Federal govern ment wins the Case on All counts both its right to act unilaterally and its right to legislate in areas which in the past have been perceived to be within provincial jurisdiction then one can foresee future strains that would tear apart the fabric of the nation. Premier Levesque of Quebec could hardly be expected to direct his nation Ali stoically inclined province to remain subservient to a greater Federal Power. Similarly it would probably soon be beyond the Power of some Western premiers to quell the rising provincial rights attitudes which Are become increasingly prevalent and potentially dangerous to the Unity of Canada. A decision favouring the Federal government would certainly raise the question of whether minorities in Canada be they linguistic or regional could continue to live comfortably in a coun try where the political will of minorities can be Over Ridden by an obsessed Federal Leader. It is Safe to predict it would Only be a matter of time and not much time at that until Quebec and perhaps some Western provinces set out to establish a defendable control Over their jurisdictions. In the Case of Quebec it should be noted that the constitutional Resolution does not fulfil the Federal Promise made at the time of last year s sovereignty association referendum Campaign. In Levesque s words or. Trudeau took off in the opposite direct another referendum might produce a different result. On the other hand if the court s decision should favor the provinces it would have an immediate Impact on Canadian politics. The Federal government would have wasted a s credibility would be completely destroyed and his continued tenure As Canada s prime minister very much in doubt. And there would be a new Challenge for other political leaders to make a truly Federal system work to Best advantage. There Are now Many areas of Provin Cial jurisdiction in which regulations have been developed to Benefit Provin Cial concerns but have the effect of preventing Canada from achieving its maximum potential. For example provincial transport regulations prevent rationalization of the trucking Industry provincial buy ing policies favor local firms and pre vent National organizations from grow ing and becoming More efficient provincial marketing boards prevent specialization in food production in areas of greatest natural advantage and thus add to food costs across the country provincial Industrial incentive programs tend to Overlook potential maximum efficiency for the firms involved. And if the supreme court comes Down someplace in the Middle Grant ing the Federal government the right to unilateral action but not in areas of provincial jurisdiction then Canada May continue somewhat As it has in the past but with a new spirit of Acri Mony resulting from confrontations of the recent past. Industrial automation is workers fear by Frank Swoboda Washington Post Washington much of organized labor the automation scare of the Early 1960s is fast becoming the reality of the 1980s. As More and More of the nation s manufacturing industries begin to switch from people to machinery in order to boost sagging productivity the future of Many of North America s current manufacturing workers becomes bleaker and bleaker. In the longer run however the change is Apt to produce a totally new emphasis in contract bargaining with a much More highly skilled highly paid work Force emerging in manufacturing. Author economist Peter Drucker predicts that by the turn of the Century the number of Blue Collar manufacturing workers will total less than 10 per cent of the nation s work Force about the same size As the farm work Force today. The developments which will ensure the decline in the proportion of the labor Force engaged in manual manufacturing work Are major structural demographic Drucker wrote in a recent paper for presentation at Pennsylvania University s Wharton school. Everybody in the american labor Force 20 years hence is now born. And the Basic fact is that regardless of wage Levels America cannot maintain a manufacturing base resting on traditional manual work and workers. The manpower needed will not be available at any because of the declining birth rate and the expected worker shortage in the coming decades Drucker warns that the nations manufacturing Indus tries must follow the same route As farming which shifted from a Man Ual and largely unskilled task into a capital intensive knowledge intense and most nearly automated Indus since 1960, the average number of workers involved in manufacturing has dropped from nearly 31 per cent of the nation s non agricultural work Force to approximately 22 per cent. More important for the Trade Union movement the mix of workers involved in manufacturing is rapidly shifting from a majority of unskilled and Semi skilled workers to a majority of skilled work ers with higher education and training requirements. The trend toward manufacturing automation already has begun to have Impact at the bargaining table. Throughout the 1970s a decade in which the nation s Economy changed from a manufacturing to a service base the emphasis in manufacturing bar gaining has evolved from innovative new contract demands to Job Security. With each new round of contract bargaining the major manufacturing unions primarily have concentrated on protecting the members they had left through the life of the new agreement. The unions basically have accepted the permanence of the Job losses in their industries. Perhaps no one recognizes this More than Al Cio president Lane Kirk land. Noting that Mcdonald s now employs More people than . Steel Kirkland told a luncheon gathering earlier this year that mass production has run its Kirkland also noted that there has not been a net Job added to . Manufacturing since the korean As More and More manufacturing firms move from labor intensive to capital intensive the Al Cio Leader sees continuous operation As the Premium at the bargaining table. Auto Industry officials already Are talking about the need for assurances of continuous operations when they go to the bargaining table with the United Auto workers Union next year demand the Union indicates it is prepared to meet. At the bargaining table the shift from labor to machinery a shift that being pushed hard by the Reagan administration and Congress with propos als for accelerated tax depreciation for business Plant and equipment is Apt to produce fewer but much better paid manufacturing workers. Perhaps a sign of just How serious Industry sees the need to become Capi Tal intensive came recently from John f. Welch the new chairman of the general electric co. Welch announced at the company s annual meeting that be plans to become a major pro Ducer of Industrial robots and other automation systems. He predicted a big profitable Market for productive Manitoba grievances anomaly will continue while the traditional grievance procedure no longer exists in Ottawa it continues to thrive in Manitoba. When an la desires to talk about something but cannot find an Opportunity within the regular orders of the Day he or she has a once a session privilege of presenting a grievance when the motion to go into committee of Supply is introduced. According to the dictionary a grievance is a real or fancied ground of that would appear to pro vide a fairly wide scope but Beau Chesne s rules and orders do not accept that definition at face value. They state that a grievance would be permitted provided that the discus Sion shall not relate to any decision of the House during the current session nor to any item of the estimates nor to any Resolution to be proposed to the committee of ways and Means nor to any matter placed on or whereof notice has been Given in the order if those rules were slavishly Fol Lowed grievances would Seldom occur but until recently no one even acknowledged their existence. There have been sessions when opposition Mem Bers used it almost every time the government attempted to move into committee of Supply to consider departmental estimates and the grievances Only ceased after everyone had spoken. At times a critic s presentation under the dome Arlene Billinkoff inspired such a virulent response from the government that the House never did consider Supply that Day. This session has been different. Until recently Only six people had used the grievance privilege and in each Case the government was silent possibly hoping that Lack of response would reduce press coverage. That depended on the Issue. Little attention was Given to Albert Driedger s criticism of the Federal drought Relief program or Len Evans condemnation of the provincial govern ment and the Premier with regard to Oil pricing policy. Other grievances did receive attention. Sidney Green s concern about the obligation of the greater Winnipeg Gas to thu. Public during the strike of its employees was reported. Similarly Harvey Bostrom s criticism of the government s attitude aspects of a proposed mine Mill Complex on one of the tributaries leading into the Shoal Lake Reservoir was considered to be news. In both cases the arguments have continued and May Lead to some Resolution of those problems. The problem described in Howard Pawley s grievance was not Likely to be resolved but the nip Leader s attack on tory financing of local governments was regarded As newsworthy and Jim Walding s his grievance of a report critical of the Tritschler inquiry into Manitoba Hydro received front Page coverage. In most of those cases while the politicians were not discussing any thing new and were generally critical there was no opposition to their grievances. However for some reason this week Russ Doern s concern was a bit too much for the government. His in Tention to criticize the Premier s presentation during the budget debate immediately Drew Warner Jorgenson to his feet. Citing Beauchesne he said since the budget debate had ended this grievance was out of order. That was irrelevant Doern insisted since he was dealing with the Premier s attitude during the past 12 months. That was not the original grievance countered Jorgenson and the speaker agreed it was a valid Point of order. He advised the critic to refrain from Deal ing with a matter which had already been discussed. Stubbornly Doern began to comment on Sterling Lyon s handling of the Constitution Issue. Once More Jorgenson Rose. Since that was not the original grievance it should not be accepted. Doern insisted he had the right to debate the attitude of the Premier to the Constitution and the provincial econ omy. He was debating the budget which was completed said Jorgenson and that was out of order. Similarly talk about the Constitution was also out of order because a Resolution on that matter was on the order paper for future debate. On another Point of order Larry doonesbury Desjardins insisted that Doern should have the right to reply to Lyon since the Premier had talked about the Constitution during the budget debate. But that had been a wide ranging debate said Jorgenson in contrast with the More limited grievance. Nip House Leader Peter Fox disagreed. A grievance was a personal matter and be cause Doem was concerned about the Premier s attitude he should be Given the right to speak. Why not after the dispute Doern finally began his condemnation of the Premier s performance with focus on his handling of the Constitution Issue. It was apparent the tories were not pleased but were they unhappy enough to eliminate this grievance proce Dure judging by debate the next Day that action was not Likely. Because of Wil son Parasiuk a accusations about the emergency health unit at the seven Oaks Hospital Bud Sherman Felt compelled to defend the entire health sys tem against such irresponsible and scandalous As government backbench ers listened attentively he expressed his concerns and attacked the critic. While it was unusual for a Cabinet minister to make use of the grievance provision it May serve As a guarantee that one parliamentary procedure will be preserved at least in Manitoba. 20nkr.v1dyou i ivs if i m going Hkam Aih you Saipt ;