Vancouver Courier
for December 20, 1998

It’s always awkward if not dangerous to be a boo-bird in the face of what the media determines is good news. The role of Cassandra, right but unpopular, is not to be envied.

Winston Churchill is such an example when he stated, after the Munich agreement that the west had suffered thereby an unmitigated disaster. He went on to predict, with astonishing accuracy, how the seeds of this disaster would come to harvest.

I am, God knows, no Churchill.

But I do have confidence that the B.C. Unity Panel report published last week will, if things follow as one might suppose, lead to a catastrophe.

Let me first say that had I been asked the questions posed in the poll they conducted, I would have answered as the majority did on all of the questions save the one dealing with Quebec’s uniqueness.

Of course I want Quebec to stay. Canada without Quebec isn’t Canada and what would remain after a split could never be formed into a real nation.

The other questions about federalism, equalization, the alienation of British Columbia would have found me in agreement.

The flaw in the Calgary Declaration, an exercise in semantics basically, is fatal. It does not address the main and most imminent problem .. about which more in a moment.

In operation here is the GIGO theory mainly used with computers. Garbage in, garbage out. If you do not give the machine all the information it needs to give you a responsive answer, you’ll get unintelligible nonsense at best and highly dangerous advice at worst.

This isn’t a new theory - statisticians and pollsters have been playing GIGO for eons.

Let’s take a couple of examples.

Crime statistics - robberies have fallen off 13% from last year a police chief reports. Great news … if it’s true. But who compiles these statistics? What are the criteria as to what does and does constitute a robbery? Is precisely the same basis used as last year? Does the police department have a use for just these stats in order to justify a program? Or perhaps this means a corresponding but unreported rise in other crimes - such as mugging?

Political polling. Surely there’s no need to catalogue the absurdities which arise from this game. When it comes down to the poll on the eve of a vote, pollsters are pretty accurate. But when it comes to determining issues, hasn’t everyone reading this asked "who the hell are they asking? It sure isn’t me." Moreover, most of us fudge. If I’m asked which problem I think poses the greatest threat to Canada, poverty, unemployment, broken homes, high taxes etc etc ending with the constitution I am going to pick poverty or unemployment even though I really think that only constitutional problems can destroy my country so that it’s most important. I will, as most people will, often answer as I’m expected to answer.

What has all this to do with the Calgary Declaration and the Unity Panel?

Everything. Because when it came to the question relating to Quebec’s unique character (supported by 62%) there should have been a supplementary - do you agree that Quebec should have a veto over future constitutional changes?

Why this extra question?

Because without it the "unique society" question it appears as if there are no consequences if the answer is yes. It’s as if we were back to the utterly discredited notion that there are no practical ramifications if we recognizing Quebec’s uniqueness or distinctiveness.

We know one thing for sure - Quebec politicians of every stripe believe that such a designation brings powers, the only uncertainty being what those powers might be.

There is one thing - and I confess I’ve written about it before but it’s a critical point - which will happen for sure upon a recognition of special status for Quebec. It will be taken as not only endorsement but approval of a Quebec veto over constitutional change.

A veto is at the root of Quebec’s demands, multi partisan demands I might add, and will mean that forevermore our constitution will be in a straitjacket, constipated to the point where the only relief will be the implosion of our nation.

The veto, which Ontario would also like, preserves the status quo forever. Those now in charge will stay in charge regardless of what changes take place. No reformed, much less new senate. No changes to the House of Commons or representation therein. No changes period because Quebec will no more be reasonable about changes sought by other provinces than she is about Churchill Falls power form Newfoundland.

But what about the Calgary Declaration provision that if one province gets extra powers, others can have then too?

A snare and a delusion. B.C. doesn’t want or need a veto. The outer provinces, Atlantic Canada, the Prairies and B.C. want change not the ability by which to prevent it.

The Unity Panel report will lead to a Legislative Resolution to support the Calgary Declaration. That will lead to an unnegotiable demand by all political leaders in Quebec that she have a veto. That will lead to a constitutional change proposal which must be put to the B.C. public by referendum.

British Columbians will reject the proposal.

And somehow those in authority don’t understand this.