Article content continued

The Supreme Court’s reference is not as clear as it could be on what it means by “clear majority”: at times, it doesn’t seem to rule out that 50 per cent plus one could be sufficient; at other times it seems like the word “clear” can’t mean anything unless it’s more than that. By virtue of its simplicity, perhaps, it’s this issue that gets all the press. As many have noted, Holyrood and Westminster agreed on 50 per cent plus one for the Scottish referendum. But you’ll find no support in this column for betting the country on a one-vote majority.

You also won’t find much worry, however. As an example of a clear question, the Unity Act proposes: “Should Quebec become a sovereign country?” There has never been a prospect of 50 per cent minus five support for such a question in Quebec, never mind plus one, and it’s doubtful there ever will be. (The Unity Act does vouchsafe “any question the wording of which has been the subject of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec. But that’s only scary if you believe Mulcair is some kind of stealth separatist, which is one of the very stupidest theories currently on offer in Canadian politics.)

It’s mass delusion, and the NDP are reinforcing it. The Supreme Court reference could not be any clearer that Quebec cannot legally secede from Canada unilaterally.

The Unity Bill is worrying for more complex reasons. One, it only concerns Quebec, whereas the Clarity Act applies, as it should, to all provinces. Two, it authorizes the Quebec Court of Appeal to rule on the disputed clarity of a referendum question, rather than properly leaving it to political actors. And three, having noted in its preamble the “obligation on all parties to Confederation to negotiate constitutional changes” in the event of a clear yes vote, it relegates to the “clarifications” section of the bill any mention of parties other than the governments of Canada and Quebec. This bolsters the preamble’s declaration that “the Quebec nation has the right to democratically decide its own future.”