along to Ottawa’ ‘for a. ‘two ~
day visit-last month, whathe —

temporary tavertility.

All you ‘need now for family planning, | it

f Adidas. Two miles a day
way. Jogging may be a little
uming, of course, but it sounds a

whole lot healthier than The Pill.

1139 Lonsdale Ave .
North Vancouver, B C
V7M 2H4

(604) 985-2131

ADVERTISING CLASSIFIED CIRCULATION
980-0511 986-6222 986-1337

north shore

news
ose asi

Publisher Peter Speck

Associate Publisher Editor-in-Chief Advertising Director
RobertGraham Noe! Wright Eric Cardwell

General Manager

Creative Production
Administration Director Rick Stonehouse
Berni Hiltiard Tim Francis Faye McCrae
Managing Editor News Editor Photography
Andy Fraser Chris Uoyd Ellsworth Dickson

Accounting Supervisor Circutation Director
a Keen Brian A. Ellis

North Shore News, founded in 1969 as an independent commun.
ty newspaper and qualified under Schedule tll, Part Itt, Paragraph Ul of
the Excise Tax Act, is published each Wednesday and Sunday. by
North Shore Free Presa Ltd. and distributed to every door on the
North Shore. Second Class Mail Reaistraton Number 3985
Subscriptions $20 per year. Entire contents © 1981 North Shore Free
Press Lid. All rights reserved.

No responsibilty accepted for unsolicited maternal including
manuscripts and pictures, which should be accompanied by a
stamped, addressed return envelope

VERIFIED CIRCULATION: 50,870 Wednesday: 49,913 Sunday

coos Nini 9 ne
‘ mere

THIS PAPER IS RECYCLABLE

wpe

‘ere

ieee ar at see at ara i ay

Was really doing was running

te ee try-out of

waters of foreign” ‘policy

A well-tested principle of warfare is confusion
of the enemy. Once you reduce your enemy to a

state where he doesn’t know what's really going
on, the battle is three-quarters won. Pierre Elliot
Trudeau is a master of the technique — as next
week's Supreme Court test of his constitutional
package may well demonstrate once more.

The “enemy” in this case
consists of eight out of
Canada’s 10 provincial
premiers and (according to
polls) the 62 per cent of
ordinary Canadians who
agree with them. Together,
they oppose the Prime
Minister's plan to patriate
the constitution unilaterally,
with a built-in charter of
rights approved by the U.K.
parliament.

They want the constitution
to be patriated just as it is, so
that a charter of rights and
any other amendments can
be decided by Canadians in
Canada.

Mr. Trudeau’s opponents
maintain that the con-
stitution in its present form
(i.e., the BNA Act) gives the
provinces’ equal standing
with the federal government
on all matters affecting the
provinces’ own rights and
powers. Since Mr. Trudeau's
present charter definitely
does affect certain
provincial rights and powers,
they hold that his unilateral
action is illegal.

That's the question the
nine Supreme Court judges
will address April 28.

PLAYOFF SCORE

The same question has
already been judged by three
provincial courts with
varying results. Manitoba

and Quebec (the former in a
split decision) ruled that Mr.

Trudeau's unilateral course

is technically legal. The
Newfoundland court
decided unanimously that
it’s legal.

Score to date: Trudeau 2,
opponents 1, thereby
reducing this phase of the

battle over Canada's future .

to the level of the Stanley
Cup‘. playoffs. Can the
provinces and majority

_ public | Opinion cven the

score in the Supreme Court
match.

If they do ~ if the Supreme
‘Court rules against unilateral
patriation — Mr. Trudeau
may presumably have to
drop his present plan and
think again. But if the
Supreme Court upholds his
action, he will push
patnation on his own terms,
complete with his own

charter, triumphantly
through Westminster.
It will

be victory by
confusion, however, because
neither a Supreme Court
decision nor any of the other
court decisions are capable

of getting to the heart of the .

prolonged and bitter con-
stitutional controversy;

The learned judges --
whether in Winnipeg,
Quebec City, St. John’s or
Ottawa -- are dealing purely
with legal  technicalitics.
And in the rulings to date

Pala i Rae i laa he ie a en hs ee ie el, hee ee ee eo ar ra cr

-for~ “he

‘and his Secretary ofS _ :
Alexander Haig came. to:

conclusion that the treaty
wouldn't make it through the |
Senate and so it would be
sent to the World Court for a
decision on off-shore
boundaries. .

Scrapping the treaty thus

- had to be done either before

the Ottawa visit or.after it. If

it had been ‘left until after- —

‘wards,” there would-- have
been great jhue-and-cry over
the fact that suddenly the
U.S." was hostile after a

presidential visit to Ottawa.

That’s not to say there

| weren't plenty of irritdtions.

arising from the visit.

ts tooth on edge in parts of

‘Manitoba and Saskatche-

wan. Without ‘doubt,

_ constituent —

by
Noel Wright.

there's also ample evidence
that individual judges don't
always see cye to cye even
on legal technalities.

It’s not the job of judges or
courts to decide whether a
proposition is right, morally
or politically. Only whether
it conforms to existing law as
they interpret it.

NO FINAL WORD

The law itself, in a
democracy, is a matter for
elected legislators in
Parliament: and legislatures.

And there are many who

think,

Liberal
Gibson,
supreme law of all,
constitution, should not even
be left to cabinet ministers

with former B.C.
leader

mi!
i ee ee ee 2 ee

Garrison is a name which .

President Reagan is going” :

Gordon
that a country's
its

; special, we nom polities

assembly ;

- solely for that purpose:
Nevertheless, such-is
prestige of the Supreme
Court of Canada that‘ i
judgement is likely to
regarded by many of thi
public as the final word on
the constitutional i issue: Mr
Trudeau. . is -. obviously.
counting on this j in the even :
of a judgement favotable

himself.
It won't be the final word

the dangerous elemento
confusion arises. ‘The.
Supreme Court will merely
state whether Mr, Trudeau.
is, or is not, allowed. to >
what he. wants to do ‘ac-",
cording to the existing. rules
‘as understood by. those
‘particular judges. a
They will render. . no
verdict on what is best’ for
Canada or on the best way of *
achieving it. Rightly | ‘not.
That ultimate judgement
remains to be delivered by:
still higher court: the peopl le
themselves. ’
A court that may yet ci
* Mr. Trudeau for contempt

Maybe it's time