The political forecast for the coming winter in Canada, notwithstanding the hoped-for moderating influence of El Niño, is cold, stormy and wet. Cold because the separatists in Quebec will spurn all requests for a civil discussion of the future of their province within the Canadian federation. Stormy because citizens in the rest of the country will increasingly demand that a hard line be taken with the separatists, including threats of enforced partition of Quebec if it votes to secede. And wet because, judging from the performance of the nine federalist premiers who met in Calgary two weeks ago, the next few months will see a lot of hand-wringing by timorous provincial and federal politicians as they try, once again, to convince Canadians that the fate of the nation rests on their willingness to accept special status for Quebec in the constitution.

The "Framework for Discussion on Canadian Unity" agreed to by the premiers in their "Calgary Declaration" pays ritual obeisance to equality, multiculturalism, bilingualism, diversity, tolerance, compassion and Indians. But the consultative process promised by the premiers will undoubtedly focus on the document's proposals for granting the government of Quebec the authority "to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada." The interpre- tation of those words will be heavily influenced by the premiers' recommendation that the powers conferred on any province by any future constitutional amendment be available to all provinces.

In the end, however, it is the premiers' vague recommendations for fine-tuning the balance of powers between the federal and provincial governments that may break the unity impasse. The desire for more autonomy is almost as strong in Alberta and British Columbia as it is in Quebec. If Ottawa, Ontario and the lesser provinces accept that massive devolution of federal power is the last, best hope for extinguishing Quebec nationalism, then Canada may yet be saved from itself.

The timing of the Calgary Declaration was no accident. A Quebec provincial election is expected next spring, and current polls indicate the incumbent separatist Parti Quebecois government under charismatic Premier Lucien Bouchard is likely to win. Mr. Bouchard has made no secret of the fact that he intends to hold another referendum on independence. The inexorable growth in support for sovereignty over the last 30 years, which fell just short of 50% in the 1995 referendum, suggests a majority is attainable in the next vote. The federalist strategy is to arm Quebec Liberal leader Daniel Johnson with nationally-sanctioned promises of special status and more autonomy for Quebec, keep up the threats of partition from Ottawa, and hope that the combination induces Quebec voters to abandon the separatist cause.

The trick for the premiers in Calgary, then, was to launch a few trial balloons aimed at Quebec, and urge the rest of the country not to shoot them down before they get there. "We're not here simply to say this is just about the Quebec issue," said New Brunswick's Frank McKenna, who chaired the meeting. "The approach we want to take is very inclusive, including the concept of equality...and the concept that whatever one province gets all other provinces should be able to get as well. We are not here to give special status to any province, that is not on the table."

B.C. Premier Glen Clark, acutely conscious of the resolute opposition in his province to the notion of special status for Quebec, took even greater pains to present himself as a Quebec non-appeaser. In a radio interview a few days before the Calgary meeting, he suggested that Ottawa ought to simply tell Quebec that Canada is indivisible and separation will not be allowed. He said he was not going to Calgary to "cut a deal," and he emphasized that British Columbians would be given the opportunity to veto anything that came out of the meeting. "It's not me you have to convince, but the people of B.C., on the merits of a deal," he said just before the talks began, although he had relatively little to say after they were over and he had affixed his signature to a document that proposed recognition of Quebec's unique character.

Alberta's Ralph Klein kept mum on the proposals themselves, preferring instead to discuss the consultation process until he has had a chance to gauge public reaction to the declaration. Saskatchewan Premier Roy Romanow, by contrast, went into the meeting warning ominously that Canada is poised at "two or three minutes to midnight," and he candidly admitted that the premiers' job was to produce something Daniel Johnson could use in the coming Quebec election. "You can't fight something with nothing," he said.

The processes that will be used to allow public scrutiny of the proposals will vary from province to province, but they will be based on principles adopted in Calgary, and they will be scrupulously solicitous of grassroots opinion. Despite all the public pulse-taking that accom- panied the development of the constitutional proposals that became the Charlottetown accord in 1992, populist opponents led by Preston Manning and the Reform Party succeeded in portraying them as elitist, the same rap that had also been accurately applied to the Meech Lake accord two years earlier. The premiers in Calgary took great care to ensure that their declaration will not suffer the same fate, and their efforts will be aided by the fact that the remote, constitutionally-discredited federal government is not at this point a direct participant in the process. They agreed on a deadline of this January for the conclusion of their consultative efforts, and to meet again afterwards, although they refused to comment on how they would cobble together a final deal.

Mr. Klein became the first premier to unveil a consultation process last week when he took the unusual step of inviting the leaders of the opposition parties to join him in soliciting public opinion through mailed questionaires, an Internet site and a 1-800 phone line. The other provinces are expected to employ similar tactics, and residents of B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan have all been promised a referendum on any formal constitutional proposals that subsequently emerge.

The response to the Calgary Declaration was initially muted in most of the country, but it got a rise out of the audience for which it was most intended, in Quebec. "We are unique, they say, by the language of our majority, by our culture and our civil code tradition," said Premier Bouchard. "So what? What will it give us? What will it change? Nothing. What a stroke of inspiration. Quebeckers are unique. We could be tempted to add, 'like everyone else, unique like the SkyDome, Cape Breton, Labatt Blue or Wayne Gretzky.' This expression would render us both socially unique and a political eunuch."

Liberal leader Daniel Johnson was as complimentary as Mr. Bouchard was contemptuous. He likened the "unique character" reference in the premiers' statement to the "distinct society" proposals in Meech and Charlottetown, and said it would aid him in the coming electoral battle with the separatists. He also opined that constitutional recognition of Quebec's unique culture, language and civil law tradition would have a substantial impact on the province's legal status within Canada: "The recognition of the distinct character of Quebec will make it so that the courts must take into account the profile, the characteristics, the history of Quebec, its composition, the existence here of a francophone majority that has a different culture from that of the rest of Canada...It is a constitutional protection of Quebec's difference."

Prime Minister Jean Chretien did not go so far as to suggest that the Calgary Declaration could form the foundation for a constitutional amendment that would grant Quebec extraordinary legal status, but he was effusively supportive. "All of this demonstrates to Quebeckers that federalism works," he said. "Yes, I think it is a good package." The prime minister also echoed Mr. Johnson in saying that the term "unique" is a worthy replacement for "distinct" in national unity-speak.

While the responses of establishment federalists and separatists were for the most part predictable, there was much uncertainty over how the official opposition in Ottawa would react to the premiers' proposals. For now, at least, the Reform Party is being moderately supportive. "The most encouraging thing is that three-quarters of their final communique is about a process that allows public input at the front end," says Mr. Manning. He also expresses enthusiasm for the document's strong affirmation of provincial equality, which has been the party's bottom-line constitutional demand since its inception.

The obvious question, however, is how the premiers' commitment to provincial equality can be reconciled with their recognition of Quebec's unique status. If these principles were enshrined in the constitution, the courts would inevitably face a choice between one or the other. Osgoode Hall law professor and constitutional expert Patrick Monahan admits that no one can predict with certainty how the courts would interpret the conflicting ideals, but he insists the Calgary document would not fundamentally alter the current balance of power between the provinces. "It is primarily a statement of the existing reality," he says, "a reality that is already reflected in Supreme Court decisions."

It may be existing reality that provokes such a hostile response in English Canada whenever it is confronted with proposals that would further enhance Quebec's unique or distinct place in the federation. Stephen Harper, the former Reform MP and current vice-president of the National Citizens' Coalition, notes that the province already has its own civil law code, control over income tax collection, a separate public pension system, laws assert- ing the primacy of the French language and a host of profoundly parochial cultural institutions. Moreover, he says, "Quebec has had a prime minister from their province for the last 29 of 30 years, and a Quebecker in almost every key federal institution and ministry. They have also been net beneficiaries in terms of its economic role and transfer programs."

Mr. Harper, who is likely to be a leading figure in the unity debate in the coming months, is unreservedly critical of the premiers' offer of unique status to Quebec. "What you've got here is a resuscitation of distinct society using other terms," he says. "You can argue they are watered down terms, but as Daniel Johnson says, it opens the door to distinct recognition."

Mr. Harper also thinks the premiers should have expressed their views on the consequences of secession if Quebec votes to leave. "This deal contains no commitment to spelling out Plan B, to protecting the country's interests," he charges. "The only way we will ever get positive constitutional change is when these people are confronted, defeated and then work constructively within federation."

The Calgary Declaration has led to inevitable comparisons with the Meech Lake accord, birthplace of the infamous "distinct society" clause, and its successor, the equally ill-fated Charlottetown package. The major difference is that both of these proposed significant changes to federal institutions such as the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada, and they also tried to alter the constitutional amending formula. In the Calgary Declaration, there is no hint that premiers are interested in institutional reform, which has historically been of great interest in the West.

"There is just nothing in here whatsoever for the West," says University of Calgary political scientist Tom Flanagan. Mr. Harper agrees. "What is interesting is the West's constitutional agenda was reduced to a single phrase, equality of provinces. I don't see how anything in this deal will mean the provinces are more equal, how regional representation will be enhanced, how the West will be treated better in terms of fiscal and economic terms. It is really funny how everybody's been debating whether or not people could settle for a 'two-E' senate, now they're getting a 'no-E' senate."

Mr. Manning argues that the commitment to provincial equality is a major win for the West. "The thinly populated provinces do not have the same opportunity to influence policy the way people in central Canada do...When the unemployment insurance fund is set up so workers in Alberta pay more and get less out of the system than do workers in other provinces, we say if the government wants to transfer funds it should be done openly through equalization," explains Mr. Manning.

Even more important, says the Reform leader, is the premiers' commitment to further negotiations on questions of federal-provincial jurisdiction. The devolution of federal powers to the provinces, he suggests, will enable each province to protect and develop its unique characteristics. "It will be the responsibility of westerners to make sure that traditional federalists don't hijack the process and bring it back to distinct society," says Mr. Manning.

There is no lack of issues that pit Ottawa against the provinces over jurisdictional matters. Perhaps the most visible of late is the B.C. salmon squabble, where Mr. Clark was ostensibly fighting U.S. overfishing off the Pacific coast but ended up at war with Ottawa over its unwillingness to fully back the province in the dispute. Last year, the province was at loggerheads with the feds over welfare policy. When the NDP government tried to impose a residency requirement on welfare recipients, Ottawa invoked its right to impose national standards and withheld transfer payments until the province capitulated.

Albertans are reminded of federal intrusiveness on an almost daily basis. Just last week, Heritage Minister Sheila Copps blocked an attempt by Banff town council to expand commercial development in the mountain resort. And the Supreme Court rebuked the province and ordered it to set up an independent committee to review judges' salaries after the Klein government slashed benchers' pay as part of its deficit reduction program.

Last year, when Alberta moved to establish private medical clinics, the federal health minister accused, tried and convicted the province of violating the Canada Health Act, and cut transfer payments until the Klein regime backed down. The province and Ottawa are currently involved in a court battle over the new federal gun-control law, and when the Supreme Court rules in the controversial Vriend case, there is every chance it will order the province to put special protections for homosexuals in its human rights act.

In the Calgary Declaration, the premiers gave no specific indication as to whether they intend to push hard for devolution as a kind of quid pro quo for unique status for Quebec. It has been reported that Mr. Romanow has characterized the unity debate as being 80% jurisdictional, while only 20% involves symbolic recognition for Quebec. At a meeting in New Brunswick earlier this summer, the premiers resolved to try and take control of social policy and the financial levers at the heart of existing federal-provincial cost-shared programs, and asked their finance ministers to proceed with further meetings focused on equalization payments, federal transfers and taxing authority. At the New Brunswick conference, the premiers also castigated Ottawa for its "recent unilateral and intrusive legislative initiatives" related to environmental jurisdiction, notably through the proposed Endangered Species and Environmental Protection Acts.

These disputes overlap another significant trend, cuts in federal transfers to the provinces. The Canada Health and Social Transfer that Ottawa gives to the provinces to pay for welfare, advanced education and health care was cut by $7 billion in the Liberal's first term.

Rebalancing powers has always been the centrepiece of Reform Party national unity proposals. "Devolution of authority and accountability and responsibility, along with the declining size of government, is good for everybody, not just Quebec," says Edmonton Reform MP and unity critic Ian McClelland. "It is important not just for unity but for the country as a whole."

But the proposal might be helpful in the national unity crusade. "Devolution is always popular in Quebec, you certainly do not have to worry how people would respond there. It is the feds you have to worry about," explains Chantal Hebert, national affairs columnist for the Montreal daily La Presse. "Quebeckers are on the same side as Albertans on this one." She adds that it is difficult to even find a politician in Quebec who does not support some degree of devolution.

University of Alberta economics professor Ken Norrie is an advocate of the idea that "administration of social programs is better done the closer you are to the people who are involved." He notes that devolution has been occurring incrementally since 1977 when transfers to provinces were made less contingent on provincial compliance with federal rules.

Prof. Norrie also observes that the populous provinces of B.C., Alberta, Ontario and Quebec are far more eager to decentralize than the smaller and less healthier ones, who depend on Ottawa to collect money in prosperous regions for redistribution to the poorer ones. Even within the provinces that are hungry for more autonomy, there are differing priorities for different governments. "The Canada Health Act and prohibitions on extra billing chafe Alberta," says Prof. Norrie. "There are some provinces who would like more freedom to play around with social programs. B.C., for instance, said they wanted a residency requirement."

While the federal government has made a few devolutionary concessions, it has retained federal spending power as a tool to intrude in provincial jurisdiction. Federal transfers to provinces can be withheld, or threatened to be withheld, if provinces do not acquiesce to federal dictates. Mr. Manning points out that significant devolution could occur without constitutional change. "To fix that would just take a restriction of the use of federal spending powers, to say they will not involve themselves in areas of provincial jurisdiction," he says.

Former B.C. Liberal Party leader Gordon Gibson observed in a recent Globe and Mail column that, "All around the world, in reaction to the forces of globalization, people are instinctively seeking new political solutions summed up in the phrase, 'government closer to home.'" Mr. Gibson says the same phenomenon must and will occur in Canada. "The vision of the federal government in Canada has always been led and shaped by one level, namely the federal level," he observes. "This is unhealthy and now the other level is accepting its responsibility." If Ottawa doesn't get out of the way, he concludes, the federation will proceed at its peril. "How far the feds are willing to go down this road depends on how intelligent they are in trying to keep the country together."

—Brian Mulawka

BC Report is available at your favorite newsstand,
or save up to 43% with a subscription