CKNW Editorial
for December 13, 1999

Of course I applaud the federal government’s bill dealing with referenda for separation. Why wouldn’t I? I have been calling for a strong federal position since 1980 when I questioned the right of Quebec to hold a referendum on sovereignty association. I maintained at that time that it was wrong for the federal government to get into the campaign because it lent legitimacy to the entire proceeding. I have maintained ever since that Pierre Trudeau ought to have announced that Ottawa would pay no heed to the outcome and that he ought to have referred the entire question of the right of a province to secede to the Supreme Court of Canada. There was a danger attendant upon such a move, of course. It might have angered Quebeckers enough that a "yes’ vote would have resulted. But I thought then and think now that the risk was worth it for even if there had been a "yes" vote the question was so vague that it would have had to effect. Besides that, Trudeau ought to have employed the pre-emptive strike and made his reference to the Supreme Court before the vote.

Since that time there has been a steady record of waffling by both Tory and Liberal governments with, I’m bound to say, the Tories being the worst. They have – and according to Joe Clark nothing has changed – gambled Canada’s unity on a policy of appeasement. Give a dog a bone. The trouble is, the dog gets to expect the bone and even a little meat on the bone besides. As was said about the Saxons trying to buy off the Danes, "Once you pay him the danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane." So it has proved with Quebec. Threat has brought appeasement which has encouraged more threats.

I applaud the government for their initiative but it is well that we look at how we reached this point.

First off, some acknowledgement is due men like Mel Smith, Gordon Gibson and others who have been voices in the wilderness calling for courage. Although, as I recall it, Mr Gibson did not agree with the reference to the Supreme Court these people have consistently made the point that appeasement of the separatist only brought new and bigger demands whenever the moment was right. I hope I will be remembered as one who has consistently supported the notion that this country, if it were to survive, would have to be brave.

Second, we cannot forget the Reform Party of Canada which based its constitutional position on the proposition that appeasement was wrong, that we were a nation one and indivisible, and that we were a nation of ten juridically equal provinces and a federal government. Those who would minimize the influence of the Reform party would do well to remember that the Liberals are scared stiff that they could cost the Liberals a majority next time out. I don’t say that Mr Chretien found his courage because of the Reform party but the success of the Reform Party is a large contributing factor. To overlook raw politics is this equation would be very wrong indeed.

Even less can we forget Guy Bertrand who brought the Supreme Court of Canada reference which gave birth to the decision upon which the federal Liberals now base their policy. Nor can we forget for a moment that the Liberals including the estimable Stephane Dion who will be with us this morning fought Mr Bertrand every inch of the way until it was clear that he was going to have his case heard.

This has been quite a reversal of form for the Liberals. It was they, you will recall, who damned near blew the referendum of November 1995 then followed that near disaster with the phony four region veto formula which they were forced to make a five region formula … the point really being that amending formulas must provide ways to reform not ways to prevent it.

Having said all that, let the Liberals take the credit for finally doing what is right. Of course it will give something for Lucien Bouchard to chew on but he’s going nowhere. I said at the time of the Bertrand reference to the Supreme Court that we were forgetting that Quebeckers, like all who love democracy, are a law abiding people who respect the law of the land. This is the major point of this Referendum Bill … if it is fair, and it certainly seems to be, Quebeckers will accept it.

If what I’ve said sounds like one cheer, one and a half cheers at best for the Liberals it’s because those of us who have taken the position that Canada must stand up for its own national integrity have taken a lot of crap from both the Liberals and the Tories on this point for 20 years and are not about to let them think that they are really entitled to credit for any more than finally coming to their senses.

But, they have. And the Tories and NDP have not.

There have been, in my view, three watershed events of the last three years.

First, Stephane Dion, contrary to the wishes of his leader who we’re told nearly fainted when he saw what had been done, suggested that if Canada was divisible then so was Quebec. That was the pail of cold water many Quebecers needed. And, rightly, they took Mr Dion seriously.

The second was the reference aforementioned by Mr Bertrand which the Liberals only joined when they were forced to it, backs against the wall.

The third watershed event is the Federal Liberal Party finally agreeing that their enemies including, dare I say it Rafe Mair, were right all along.