THE ADVOCATE 765
VOL. 80 PART 5 SEPTEMBER 2022
Dear Editor,
Re: “From Our Back Pages”
(2022) 80 Advocate 135, re-
printing Richard H. Vogel,
Q.C., “A Report from Your Correspondent
in London: Inside
the Constitutional Uproar
1980-82” (2012) 70 Advocate 27
In this piece, the distinguished
Richard H. Vogel, Q.C., gives a fascinating
and unique account of
events—as only he knew them—
leading to the passage of the Constitution
Act, 1982. This supplements
the several works by participants
and scholars dealing with these
events, including one to which I
shall refer, Canada’s Constitutional
Revolution, by the Honourable Barry
Strayer, a central federal figure.
In all this scholarship, however,
I have yet to encounter any discussion
of procedural options that
were considered to create a Canadian
made constitution not dependent
on originating U.K. legislation.
The only avenue, it seems,
was to persuade the U.K. Parliament,
colonial cap in hand, that
our cause and process were just
and appropriate. This approach
seems not to have been questioned.
The effort succeeded, but at
the price of leaving a permanent
shrivelled but unsevered umbilical
cord to the United Kingdom. This
result is reflected in the Charter’s
citation: “Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the
Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule
B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.),
1982, c. 11” (“B” because “A” is
devoted to the French version of
the Canada Act, U.K. statutes being
in English only. Chapter 11, by the
way, is bookended by c. 10, the
Industrial Training Act 1982, and
c. 12, the Travel Concessions (London)
Act 1982). This citation unembarrassedly
forms the first footnote
LETTERS TO
THE EDITOR
By R.C. Tino Bella*
* Letters to the editor may be e-mailed to <mbain@the-advocate.ca>. Letters published do not necessarily reflect the views
of the Advocate or its staff. We encourage a diversity of voices and views in our pages.
link
link