Share this Story : National Post Copy Link Email X Reddit Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr

Letters: Revisiting an historic achievement in provincial rights

Readers comment on issues of the week, plus more

You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.

‘Courts and federal government are abusing this important amendment’

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.

Unlimited online access to National Post.

National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.

Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.

Support local journalism.

Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.

Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.

Unlimited online access to National Post.

National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.

Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.

Support local journalism.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Access articles from across Canada with one account.

Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.

Enjoy additional articles per month.

Get email updates from your favourite authors.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Access articles from across Canada with one account

Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments

Enjoy additional articles per month

Get email updates from your favourite authors

Sign In or Create an Account

Re: Supreme Court teamed up with Trudeau to reverse the Constitution — Ted Morton, April 29

Letters: Revisiting an historic achievement in provincial rights Back to video

Ted Morton’s column about the addition of Section 92A — which affirms provincial jurisdiction over the exploration, development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources — to the Constitution during the constitutional negotiations of 1980/81 was not completely accurate.

Alberta or the four western provinces alone could not realize the addition of 92A in the Constitution Act of 1982. That would take a majority of the provinces.

This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)

There was an error, please provide a valid email address.

By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of Platformed will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Interested in more newsletters? Browse here.

Newfoundland was very much in favour of this addition, as was P.E.I. and Nova Scotia. The Newfoundland government produced a 44-page document on Aug. 18, 1980, that outlined in detail Newfoundland’s constitutional position entitled “Towards The Twenty First Century — Together,” The Position of the Government of Newfoundland Regarding Constitutional Change. That document clearly stated Newfoundland’s position as it related to the contents of 92A. It was distributed to all the provinces and the federal government.

On Page 27, Point One stated, and I quote: “Provinces should have ownership of and control over their natural resources.”

Point Two said: “There should be exclusive provincial jurisdiction over non-renewal resources, forests and the production of electrical energy.”

While the western provinces were strongly in favour of the addition of 92A to the Constitution, its ultimate success was because other provinces also favoured this amendment.

Mr. Morton is correct in that the courts and the federal government are abusing this important amendment. But sadly, this is also true of the opening words of the Charter, “the supremacy of God and the rule of law,” and Section 1 of the Charter. We see it today in the federal government’s brazen attempts to unconstitutionally amend the notwithstanding clause.

Letters: OMA bias towards Jewish doctor 'disgusting'

Letters: Sovereign wealth fund is a poor idea for debt-ridden Canada

Advertisement 1Story continues belowThis advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.document.addEventListener(`DOMContentLoaded`,function(){let template=document.getElementById(`oop-ad-template`);if(template&&!template.dataset.adInjected){let clone=template.content.cloneNode(!0);template.replaceWith(clone),template.parentElement&&(template.parentElement.dataset.adInjected=`true`)}});

Hon. A. Brian Peckford (Former premier of Newfoundland and Labrador and last living First Minister whose signature is affixed to the Patriation Agreement).

Some provinces are more equal than........

© National Post