The real story of the patriation of our Constitution
U.K. diplomat helped pave the way, says Ian Waddell.
Sir John Ford died recently at the age of 95. He was the British high commissioner (ambassador) during the time of the patriation of Canada’s Constitution, then the British North America Act, a U.K. law. Finally, Canada was to be a fully independent country.
In the early stages of the patriation, the Pierre Trudeau government was stalled. Only two provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick, supported his package. The rest of the “gang of eight” were asking the Canadian courts to block the federal government’s right to unilaterally patriate the constitution. As well, all sorts of interest groups were in London — Aboriginal chiefs, the separatist Quebec government, women’s groups and others — lobbying British MPs who would vote on the repeal of the BNA. Trudeau had no elected MPs west of Winnipeg, so he needed the support of the NDP in Parliament, since the Conservatives were opposed. And he got it from NDP Leader Ed Broadbent.
In February 1981, I was at a party at Government House hosted by Gov.- Gen. Edward Schreyer. A well-dressed man with a British accent asked me why the NDP MPs from Western Canada would support a package with no Aboriginal rights, no guarantee of provincial control of their resources, weak Charter of Rights on women’s issues, etc. I tried to avoid a direct answer since our caucus and party were indeed divided. Instead I stammered something about it’s going to pass through the British Parliament soon. The man replied don’t be too sure of that. I asked him who he was, and he replied John Ford, the U.K. high commissioner.
Next morning at caucus I mentioned the incident to Broadbent. I was stunned when, later that day in question period, Broadbent put a question to Mark MacGuigan, Secretary of State for External Affairs, mentioning the incident, the ambassador and me by name. All hell broke loose!
Ford called a news conference, and Trudeau complained to then-British prime minister Margaret Thatcher behind the scenes. Editorials in most Canadian papers protested Britain’s involvement in Canadian affairs. The one in the Toronto Star said, “End British Meddling ”; the Montreal Gazette accused Britain of “overstepping bounds.” Trudeau had more of a sense of humour, quipping, with a nod to the current instalment of Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back. Sir John was recalled to London.
Thirty-three years later, former Vancouver city councillor Marguerite Ford invited me to share a gin and tonic with her visiting brother, Sir John Ford. I was a little apprehensive. Did he think I’d got him kicked out of Canada? He laughed and told me he had already been planning to retire, and the government was well aware of that. Sir John had gone on to a successful second career in the private non-profit sector. We had a nice chat, and he told me what really happened. Sir John had just been doing his job. The political atmosphere at the time was tense. The Kershaw Report in the U.K. had recommended that the British House of Commons not pass Trudeau’s package. Thatcher at that time even if she wanted to (she was no big fan of Trudeau) didn’t have the power to whip her MPs. So, he didn’t have the votes in the British House of Commons, and Sir John thought Trudeau should know that.
Of course things changed. First, in Canada the Supreme Court forced Trudeau to go back and negotiate with the provinces. Broadbent rather courageously went back to Trudeau and secured in the new Constitution clauses on Aboriginal rights (s35), provincial resource rights (s 92A) and a strengthened Charter of Rights. What happened in the U.K. to assure the required Parliamentary approval? According to Sir John it was not the wining and dining (the British MPs were loving that). It was the start of the Falklands War, making our patriation an afterthought. And here’s a secret Sir John told me.
As to the vote in the mother of Parliaments, of all the U.K. political insiders who tried to predict the votes of the Conservative backbenchers, including party leaders, whips, journalists, veteran MPs, etc., the most accurate was the Queen. She really does pay attention to Commonwealth matters. And I’m sure she was happy not to find herself in the impossible position of being advised by her British ministers to reject the Canadian package while being advised by her Canadian ministers to accept it.
Canadians owe the late high commissioner maybe not quite an apology, but more a recognition about the role he played in the patriation of our Constitution. In retrospect he was only doing his job, and doing it well.