Some Day the Sun Will Shine and Have Not Will Be No More
Page 28
We have agreed that the provisions of Section 23 in respect of Minority Language Education rights will apply to our provinces. Any province not agreeing to be bound by this section continues to have the right to accept the application of the section to their province at any future time.
The provisions of the Act now before Parliament relating to equalization and regional disparities, and non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources, and electrical energy would be included.
FINAL AGREEMENT
November 5, 1981
In an effort to reach an acceptable consensus on the Constitutional issue which meets the concerns of the federal government and a substantial number of provincial governments, the undersigned governments have agreed to the following:
Patriation
Amending Formula
Acceptance of the April Accord Amending Formula with the deletion of Section 3, which provides for fiscal compensation to a province which opts out of a constitutional amendment.
The Delegation of Legislative Authority from the April Accord is deleted.
Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The entrenchment of the full Charter of Rights and Freedoms now before Parliament with the following changes:
With respect to Mobility rights, the inclusion of the right of a province to undertake affirmative action programs for socially and economically disadvantaged individuals as long as a province’s employment rate was below the national average.
A “notwithstanding” clause covering sections dealing with fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights. Each “notwithstanding” provision would require reenactment not less frequently than once every five years.
We have agreed that the provisions of Section 23 in respect of Minority Language Education rights will apply to our provinces.
The provisions of the Act now before Parliament relating to equalization and regional disparities, and non-renewable natural resources, forestry resources, and electrical energy would be included.
A constitutional conference, as provided for in Clause 36 of the Resolution, including in its agenda an item respecting constitutional matters that directly affect the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, including the identification and definition of the rights of those peoples to be included in the Constitution of Canada, shall be provided for in the Resolution. The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussion of that item.
Dated at Ottawa this 5th day of November, 1981.
CANADA
(Signed)
Pierre Elliott Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
ONTARIO
(Signed)
William G. Davis, Premier
NOVA SCOTIA
(Signed)
John M. Buchanan, Premier
NEW BRUNSWICK
(Signed)
Richard B. Hatfield, Premier
MANITOBA
(Signed)
Sterling R. Lyon, Premier
Subject to approval of Section 3 (c)
by the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
BRITISH COLUMBIA
(Signed)
William R. Bennett, Premier
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND (Signed)
J. Angus MacLean, Premier
SASKATCHEWAN
(Signed)
Allan E. Blakeney, Premier
ALBERTA
(Signed)
Peter Lougheed, Premier
NEWFOUNDLAND
(Signed)
Brian A. Peckford, Premier
E. LETTERS CONCERNING THE PATRIATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
On April 15, 1999, Professors Ted Morton and Barry Cooper authored an article carried by the National Post entitled “Night of the Long Knives: Who Dunnit?”
The article espouses a version of events concerning the Patriation of the Constitution November 4 and 5, 1981, that has been allowed to gain credence and which is really at variance with what actually happened. As a result of that article, my former deputy ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Cyril Abery, and my former deputy minister of Justice, Mr. Ron Penney, responded directly to the professors with the following letters and for the first time provided copies of the original documents that Newfoundland prepared which had led to the Agreement.
Suite 2
47 Harvey Road
St. John’s, Nfld A1C 2E9
April 21, 1999
Professors Ted Morton and Barry Cooper
Political Science Department
University of Calgary
Dear Sirs:
I am writing with reference to your April 15, 1999, article in the National Post entitled “Night of the Long Knives: Who Dunnit?” More specifically I refer to your statements that: “Since when does Newfoundland broker national unity deals? Other first-hand accounts suggest that Newfoundland’s role was that of delivering the message, not creating it; that its real authors are Saskatchewan Premier Allan Blakeney and his attorney general Roy Romanow. The ‘Peckford document’ was decisively influenced by Romanow, McMurtry, and Chrétien, and behind them stood the master puppeteer himself.”
My name is Cyril Abery and I was deputy minister of Intergovernmental Affairs for the Government of Newfoundland from 1972 through 1984. As such I was intimately involved in all constitutional discussions leading up to and including the events of November 4 and 5, 1981, in Ottawa.
I do not know your sources of “other first-hand accounts,” but the events of the night of November 4 and morning of November 5, as you describe them, are both totally inaccurate and misleading. Mr. Romanow, whatever his role on the overall process, was not the “instrument” of Ontario and Ottawa for “influencing/dismantling the Gang of Eight,” as you state. Indeed, he was not even involved in the events of the evening of November 4 until well AFTER the so-called “Peckford document” was completed.
To help you understand the events of the afternoon/ evening of Wednesday, November 4, 1981, I am enclosing copies of a number of documents, which, to the best of my knowledge, have never been made public (although Peter Meekison, former DM, Alberta IGA was given a copy sometime in 1982 when he visited St. John’s and met with Ron Penney and me).
The first enclosure is a copy of a document entitled “Constitutional Conference, Sequence of Events, November 4 and 5,1981.” This was prepared and signed jointly by Mr. Ron Penney, then deputy minister of Justice for Newfoundland and me about a week after the Constitutional Conference in Ottawa when the events were still quite fresh in our minds. We did so because even at that early date there were misleading and inaccurate accounts surfacing.
You will note from the first document that it was Howard Leeson, not Roy Romanow, who represented Saskatchewan at the meeting in the Château Laurier on the evening of November 4, 1981, and that others attending at the start were Peter Meekison of Alberta and Mel Smith of British Columbia. It was only much later in the evening (about midnight) that representatives of Nova Scotia and PEI were involved. Manitoba and Quebec were not represented at all until breakfast the next morning. Ontario and New Brunswick were also not involved, having never been part of the Group of Eight.
The second document attached is a handwritten copy of the first draft, dated November 4, 1981. The handwriting is mine and was written in conjunction with Mr. Penney in his room at the Four Seasons. This was amended as noted and typed up at the Four Seasons. Document 3 (attached) is the type-written draft which we brought over to Room 481 at the Château Laurier at 9: 30 p.m. for discussion with Messrs. Leeson, Meekison, and Smith.
It is important to note that the items included in this draft were not in any way considered by us (i.e. the Newfoundland delegation) to be original ideas—far from it. Rather, they were merely a summary of what Premier Peckford and ourselves believed were the main elements of a possible compromise based on all the previous discussions and negotiations that had taken place. However, Premier Peckford fully intended to table this document
at the conference the next morning if subsequent meetings that night with the others did not lead to an agreed-upon text (which they did).
Document 4 (attached) is the second draft which was agreed upon by ourselves, Peter Meekison, Mel Smith, and Howard Leeson. The changes from the first draft and the reasons for the changes are noted in Document 1. It was this second draft which was presented to and agreed upon by Premiers Peckford, Blakeney, Buchanan, MacLean, Peter Meekison representing Premier Lougheed, and Mel Smith representing Premier Bennett at about 1: 00 a.m. on November 5 in the Château Laurier and subsequently presented to the conference by Premier Peckford the next morning following the breakfast meeting.
You will note from Document 1 that Mr. Romanow joined the midnight meeting towards the very end, but was not involved in any of the discussions leading up to the revised draft. Whether he subsequently had discussions with Mr. McMurtry and/or Mr. Chrétien prior to the start of the conference the next morning and brought them onside is something I have no knowledge of but is no doubt a possibility.
Finally, attached is Document 5, which is a portion of the actual agreement which was signed at the conference table on the 5th floor of the Conference Centre at about 1: 00 p.m. on November 5 by the prime minister and the premiers/ representatives of the nine provinces. You will note that this is in English only. The French version was the one signed before the cameras in the main Conference Hall at 2: 00 p.m. (As I recall, Trudeau said something like “Let’s sign it now just in case someone changes their minds on the way downstairs!”)
Quite frankly, I do not know what role Mr. Romanow, Mr. McMurtry, and Mr. Chrétien played in the overall scheme of things. Undoubtedly it was significant.
However, what I do know as a fact is that they were not involved in the Château Laurier meetings on the night of November 4, nor did they play any part (overt or covert) in our deliberations that night. Unless you subscribe to the theory that all the officials, ministers, and premiers from six provinces were manipulated without even knowing it, your statement that “‘the Peckford document’ was decisively influenced by Romanow, McMurtry, and Chrétien, and behind them stood the master puppeteer himself” is a complete and utter myth.
If you wish to verify the sequence of events as outlined above and in the attached documents, you might wish to contact Peter Meekison who still resides in Edmonton and whom you undoubtedly know. I believe that Mel Smith still resides in Victoria and Howard Leeson in Regina, but I have lost contact with them over the last few years. Ron Penney still resides in St. John’s and is currently chief commissioner and solicitor for the City of St. John’s.
I am confident that they are as amazed as I am at how expertly we were all manipulated that night in Ottawa, and how we still haven’t cottoned on some eighteen years later!
I would also be pleased to elaborate further should you so wish. My telephone number is (709) 738-2944. However, you should note that I will be out of the country from April until early June. I look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Best regards.
Yours truly,
Cyril Abery
And here is Mr. Penney’s letter to the professors:
10 Inglis Place
St. John’s, NF
A1A 4B7
April 30, 1999
Professors Ted Morton and Barry Cooper
Political Science Department
University of Calgary
Dear Sirs:
Re: November 15, 1999,Article National Post
Cyril Abery has given me a copy of his letter of April 21, 1999, to you with respect to the above, which accurately reflects the involvement of the Newfoundland delegation in the events referred to.
Aside from the issues of fact and the negotiating record set out in Mr. Abery’s letter, there are two other serious concerns that I have with the article.
The first is a failure to attempt to contact members of the Newfoundland negotiating team, such as Cyril Abery or the undersigned, to get the “first-hand account” rather than rely solely on “other first-hand accounts.” I would have thought that the only way in which a version of events can be tested against other versions is to have all versions available.
The second is the tone, perhaps unintended, of your comment: “Since when does Newfoundland broker national unity deals?” I read this as an insinuation that the members of the Newfoundland delegation were either intellectually incapable of performing such a task, or that we do not have the necessary status within Confederation to undertake such a role, either of which is equally offensive.
The Newfoundland delegation played a key role in the entire Patriation debate, defending the interests of Newfoundland within the context of our federal system, and the role of the provinces in that system. I am proud of the part we played, but I am disappointed about the myths which have arisen about what actually happened and which continue to be supported in articles such as yours.
Yours truly,
Ronald G. Penney
Thankfully, the two professors responded to Mr. Penney’s letter, one actually apologizing, sort of. Given that Alberta is often unfairly criticized by the national media, people from Alberta should not criticize other provinces, and not specifically Newfoundland, one should note.
University of Calgary
Faculty of Social Sciences
April 30, 1999
Dear Mr. Penney:
Thank you for your letter of 30 April. We appreciate receiving Mr. Abery’s account and supporting documents. We propose to undertake further research and interviews to try to sort out apparent inconsistencies in the various accounts.
I also want to apologize for the line about Newfoundland brokering unity deals. It was a cheap shot; similar to the ones Alberta often gets in the national media. I don’t like them when they are directed at Alberta, so henceforth I will be careful not to direct them at other provinces.
Sincerely,
Ted Morton
The other letter does not come right out and use the word “apologize.”
University of Calgary
Faculty of Social Sciences
Department of Political Science
May 3, 1999
Mr. Ronald Penney
19 Inglis Place
St. John’s, NFLD
AIA 4L7
Dear Mr. Penney:
Thank you for your faxed letter of 30 April regarding the piece Ted Morton and I wrote for the National Post.
You are, of course, quite correct to insist that we ought to have contacted all the participants in the original conference. We relied on published accounts, and Mr. Abery’s notes and other materials he made available were not published.
Second, there was no intention to cast into doubt the intellectual resources of the officials of any of the delegations. There was (and I speak only for myself) an intention to call into question the honesty or perhaps the straightforwardness of the prime minister. In my opinion, he was the most Machiavellian of our prime ministers. Not too long ago Lloyd Axworthy remarked that he was surprised at the extent of evilness of the president of Yugoslavia. He clearly underestimated something. I would submit that the premiers and perhaps their staff underestimated something with respect to Pierre Trudeau. This is not a matter of intellect (though Trudeau is very smart) but of integrity. The question of the timing and significance of Trudeau’s offer of a referendum, for example, has yet to be explained, at least to my satisfaction.
Perhaps at some future occasion it may be possible to gather together the participants and compare recollections and interpretations.
In any event, thank you again for writing.
Cordially,
Barry Cooper, FRSC
Professor
There are several things that are of interest to me about this letter. Of course, there really isn’t an apology, although an acknowledgement that their research for the article was shoddy given that they failed to contact people who were actually in the room when the patriation deal wa
s being created. Sadly, academia feeds off just some facts and a lot of myth and it makes for great conspiracy theories—lots of articles but poor scholarship. To continue to advance the proposition of behind-the-scenes manipulation by Trudeau in light of the evidence of those who actually were participants is really a stretch. And finally, the so-called “first-hand accounts” phrase has now been clarified as I mentioned earlier; there was only one account, that of Mr. Romanow, who arrived on the night of November 4, late and after the agreement had been completed.
I also responded to the article by writing directly to the National Post, who carried it in their April 27, 1999, edition.
Over the years, I have read the views of a number of commentators on the events surrounding the Patriation of our Constitution. All of them I have found were either wrong or in some cases incomplete. I kept notes at the time of this important occasion and in due course I will make them public. For now, I would like to make a few points concerning the article by Ted Morton and Barry Cooper ( “Night of the Long Knives: Who Dunnit?” April 15).
The so-called Peckford Document was prepared by me through the night of November 4 and presented the next morning at the breakfast meeting and subsequently to the formal gathering.