CKNW Editorial
for December 19, 2001

It was not deliberate, I assure you. Yesterday's show had, in tandem, a man speaking for a BC separatist party then Dr Grant Hill who seeks the leadership of the Canadian Alliance on the "unite the right" ticket.

I well remember when the Reform Party started. The complaints stated by the separatist spokesman about how British Columbia is and always has been screwed by confederation were part of the reasons the Reform Party came into being and why so shortly after its foundation it had such spectacular success.

I remember interviewing Preston Manning early on and hearing him talk about how "the west wants in", a phrase coined by the late Mel Smith and me back in the late seventies, incidentally ... and how there should be equality amongst the provinces ... which led to the plank in the platform calling for a Triple "E" Senate ... elected, effective and equal. This was to be the party of Western Canada.

Now, of course, the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance knows that with its basic platform it can't get elected east of the Lakehead. What no one seems willing to ask is, who cares? And that is not only a legitimate question it is the question that goes to the very foundation of what many in British Columbia thought the Reform/Alliance was all about.

When evaluating a political situation it's wise to look at what is, not what you would like it to be. There is a reality in this country that governs any political party that wishes to reform the system - the system is incapable of reformation. The Amending Formula is not that at all - it is a veto formula and the reality is that no reform will be permitted by Ontario or Quebec if it diminishes their power - and any amendment in which BC would be interested would do that. Does anyone seriously think that Quebec for example, would give up its 24 to 6 ratio of their senators to ours? Not unless we gave them an even greater imbalance of power such as a permanent 25% of the House of Commons. Having said that, we are almost certain to have a thrust for constitutional change after Jean Charest becomes premier of Quebec. He cannot win that election unless he plays the constitutional card so he will play it. He will promise "distinct society", a veto for Quebec, 25% of the House of Commons and more. He will then have to deliver and Ottawa will be forced to play his game. When that happens, five years or less down the road, where will British Columbia be represented? Will it be in a party that speaks for it or one that is trying to suck up to Ontario voters?

Because we want the Liberals out of Ottawa so badly, the wish has become father to the thought. We must unite the right is the mantra of many Liberal haters. But, no one seems to want to discuss the real problem. To unite the right means there must be an all but formal deal between the Alliance and the Tories. And what do the Tories believe on the constitutional issue that we're bound to face again?

They believe in what their leader Joe Clark has called asymmetrical federalism ... which is another way of saying a Canada where Quebec has special powers. It was, after all, the Conservative that aroused Quebec passions back in 1986 by trying to get Quebec to sign on the 1982 Constitution. They did this at a time when constitutional affairs couldn't have been further from Quebeckers' minds and they did it out of a personal need of Brian Mulroney to do what Trudeau couldn't do - get Quebec's signature on the line. The Mulroney Tories, of which Joe Clark was a senior member, even went so far as to recruit out and out separatists like Lucien Bouchard.

Let's not forget that it was Joe Clark who with every ounce of his energy led the fight to cram the Charlottetown Accord down our throats.

Now the likes of Grant Hill and Diane Ablonczy are running for the leadership on the basis of an amalgamation of the Alliance and Tory parties.

Yesterday I put it to Dr Hill that the parties were poles apart on the fundamental constitutional question. He agreed but felt that the two parties could work things out.

I pointed out Stephen Leacock's famous aphorism that "many a man who has fallen in love with a dimple makes the mistake of marrying the whole girl" ... that any Tory/Reform Alliance would come a cropper as soon as the basic constitutional questions reared their ugly heads. Dr Hill and other leadership hopefuls are prepared to join with the Tories and hope that somehow things will work out. That's rather like saying to a potential roommate "I know there's an elephant in your room but we'll move in together and pretend it isn't there."

The Canadian Alliance cannot be a spokesman for the legitimate claims of British Columbia and at the same time kiss the backsides of voters in Ontario and Quebec. The Canadian Alliance cannot stand for ten juridically equal provinces while being part of a party that utterly rejects that notion.

Further, the Alliance can't make common cause with the Tories on the basic constitutional question, remain a right wing party and expect middle-of-the-road British Columbians to support it. After all, if the only choice British Columbians have is between one of two parties that favour appeasing Quebec, one of which is middle-of-the- road and the other isn't, why not take the middle-of-the-road? Namely the hated Liberals?

The Stephen Harpers and John Reynolds of the Alliance make the serious mistake of assuming that British Columbians have supported the Alliance because they love their fiscal and social policies. Some of course do but I would guess that most of its support comes from moderates who can't stand the Liberals basic stance on Confederation.

On the other hand, the Grant Hills and Diane Ablonczys of the Alliance think British Columbians can and will ignore what Joe Clark and the Tories stand for.

What this all tells me is that the Alliance has a serious identity crisis and it had better decide - soon - whether it is prepared to sacrifice its basic principles to appeal to Ontario and piss off BC voters or stick to basics, resign themselves to being in opposition and hope that moderate British Columbians will overlook the harshness and intemperance of many of its members on social issues.

I see balmier days ahead for the Liberals in BC, amazing and nauseating though that might be, simply because their opponents either can't get together for the right reasons or do get together for the wrong ones.