Financial Post
for May 29, 1998

Amazing, isn't it? Governments - especially the Chretien crowd - are so often huddled in the caboose while the people are up in the club car.

"Distinct society" for Quebec is not merely a non starter in B.C., if passed without its consent, will cause big trouble. Yet Prime Minister Chretien acts though a constitutional amendment to that effect is a self dunker. Once the so-called Calgary Framework passes he says he'll simply substitute the word "unique character of Quebec society" " for "distinct" society, propose a constitutional amendment to enshrine it and Bob's your uncle. This is the thinking in the national caboose while the discussions in the Quebec car no longer consider "distinct society" very important and are gearing up for an election where Meech Lake will be the starting (italics) point. Meanwhile in the B.C. car they're saying, with typical west coast gentility, "no goddam way."

Jean Chretien is either stupid (and I don't believe that for a moment) or hell bent on satisfying a Quebec demand, which has already been overtaken by others, at the expense of permanently alienating the west coast.

For many Canadians and most British Columbians the "two founding nation" myth has been rejected while the 1867 BNA Act setting up juridically equal provinces has been restored to its proper place. Trouble is, even though a majority of Ontarians are likely also on the "equality" team, the Prime Minister proceeds as if nothing has happened for the past 30 years.

An attempt, whether front or back door, to enshrine "distinct society" is not just of academic interest, but may be the cure which kills the patient. These "two little words" (not at all changed by substituting "unique" for "distinct") go to the root of how British Columbians see Canada.

You can't stop the House of Commons from amending its own resolutions. So be it for the December 1995 resolution which recognized, for federal government purposes, a "distinct society" designation for Quebec and agreed to exercise the federal constitutional veto for any of five regions, including B.C. But even Mr Chretien knows that this all doesn't count for much unless it's incorporated in the constitution. And how to do that?

He needs 7 provinces with 50% of the population. When he adds up Ottawa's client provinces, the four Atlantic provinces plus Saskatchewan and Manitoba he only needs either Quebec or Ontario. "Only" may be understating his task because Lucien Bouchard won't agree and by the time our "national saviour", Jean Charest, becomes Premier, the stakes will be much higher so he won't agree either. It will be up to Ontario where Premier Harris has a dilemma which he's shown himself very sensitive to. Not only does he know that "distinct" or "unique" society will be a tough sell in Ontario he's perhaps the only premier other than Glen Clark who appreciates the depth of feeling in British Columbia. Moreover he understands, as few others do, that deep feelings in B.C. must be seriously considered if we're going to keep this country together. I suspect Mr Harris will, in anticipation of this problem not of his making, seriously consider legislation requiring a referendum before a constitutional amendment is passed.

But the point is not whether or not Mr Chretien wins a ribbon for getting his out dated notions into the Constitution but the wreckage his exercise will leave. Especially if he ignores British Columbia and Victoria insists, as the public will undoubtedly demand, that he exercise the December 1995 veto for B.C. to tube the results of his mighty efforts. What then?

Simple. He will refuse the veto saying that by passing the Calgary Framework British Columbia in fact consented and he couldn't possible entertain a veto under those circumstances. Then the fat will really be in the fire because the B.C. version of the "Framework" states clearly that it "does not imply agreement to constitutional change and that any future amendment to the Constitution must be approved by British Columbians in a referendum ... "

The Chretien approach clearly implies that the feelings of many Canadians and a majority in B.C., likely Alberta and I suspect Ontario, are a distant second in importance to what he thinks will keep Quebec in Canada.

Worst of all, he's risking this dangerous alienation in many parts of Canada for a "solution" which is 15 years out of date and won't make a particle of difference in Quebec.