Quebec Sovereignty

  Since the dawn of civilization, the controversial topic of self-determination and sovereignty has always been the epicenter of war & conflict. The issue has become more relevant than ever as the talks of yet another referendum resurface with the success of Parti Quebecois. The future prospects looks bleak as the tacit war wages on. To all appearances, the federalist & separatist will debate incessantly over the issue of Quebec sovereignty while neglecting the true purpose of Quebec – to be part of a united Canada. 

  The issue of Quebec sovereignty is rather intricate due to the subtle relationship between the Quebecois & the rest of Canada.  The most apparent contributing factor to the tension between the Quebeckers and the Anglo-Canadian is Quebec’s distinct culture, history & tradition. As an illustration, a survey done in 2003 shows that 86% of Quebecois prefer being referred to as a Quebec citizen rather than a Canadian. This clearly proves that Quebeckers are more patriotic towards their own ethnic group rather than the country that they are a part of. After the cultural tension came political tension - the latter engendered by the previous.  On account of Quebec’s distinct culture, the federal government has created bills & provisions that were intended to protect Quebec in specific. Consequently, many Anglophones became discontent with the special treatments that Quebec received. The most recent evidence would be the massive demonstrations & protests in front of Quebec's National Assembly on September 1st by the Anglophone community when Parti Québécois planned to boost Bill 101, which the Quebeckers, in turn, took as maltreatment by Canada. The tension can escalate as exemplified indefinitely.

  In order to truly understand the issue, one cannot look at it solely through the scope of self-determination and sovereignty. Humourist Yvon Deschamps once joked that what Quebecois really want is an independent Quebec in a strong and united Canada. What does Quebec want? It's a political riddle that has long baffled English Canadians. Typically, an ethnic group that opts for self-determination and sovereignty would usually be threatened under a malevolent regime or stripped of rights & freedoms culturally or politically. An example would be the former Yugoslavia states. The reason why those states or provinces thrived for independence is that they were without assurance of their culture, tradition, or even their lives being protected. The circumstances are dramatically different for Quebec. In a sense, Canadians living in Quebec are already recognized for their diversity in terms of their language and culture. So what would they gain? Furthermore, it has already achieved sovereignty to some extent – every province has. An example would be the controversial Notwithstanding Clause, which allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to override certain portions of the Charter. In summary, the Quebec Independence Movement has to be examined through the lenses of economics & politics as well. One can even argue that the movement is but a clever strategy to grasp the federal government’s attention for Quebec.

  The two former paragraphs are but precursors to the most critical question: should Quebec separate from Canada? From Canada’s perspective – and vice versa – Quebec should never separate. The disadvantages are just too great to be compared to its trifling benefits. To begin, without the cultural diversity that Quebec provides, Canada would be one step closer to complete assimilation into the United States. Our economic sovereignty has already been stripped away from us with the advent of NAFTA. To lose Quebec could mean the loss of our cultural sovereignty. Secondly, we would lose 20% of our GDP as well as much of our industries & natural resources with the departure of Quebec, therefore making us a weaker nation economically & demographically. Third of all, allowing Quebec to separate would weaken our national unity, especially when our immigration rate is on the rise. The Quebeckers might argue that independence would strengthen Quebec and make it a more prosperous nation. As tempting as that sounds, it is erroneous. To start, the reality is that no one in Quebec, or outside it, believes that an independent Quebec would want anything but the most bare-bones of constabulary duties for its military. Certainly neither Canada nor the United States are willing to make Quebec a member of NATO. Possibly bereft of alliances, the future would be bleak for an independent Quebec. Secondly, leaving Canada would put greater pressure on Quebec to support itself.  It would need its own resources, abilities to import and export, and industry enough to provide jobs for those who live there. If it is not able to do this already, what makes Quebeckers think it would survive on its own independent of Canada? Quebec receives more money from the federal government than it contributes by tax revenue, so it should be a unanimous view that departing from Canada would greatly impact the daily lives of the Quebec citizens and put more economic strains upon them. Other problems, such as native rights, trade & travel are also obstacles to Quebec separation. To conclude, Quebec independence is an absurd notion that is detrimental to both sides.

  While it’s been said that the notion of Quebec sovereignty is infeasible, the question that still remains unclear is what actions Canada should take to maximize peace & prosperity for both sides. The answer is to remain status quo. After receiving the $7.5 billion equalization payments, Pauline Marois is still fomenting for more provincial powers over immigration; more provincial powers over copyright rules; more provincial powers over foreign aid. No matter what Ottawa does, it will never satisfy. Quebec, whose people were declared a nation within Canada by Parliament in 2006, already behaves in many respects like an independent country. It’s true that Stephen Harper’s Conservatives hold only five seats in Quebec. It’s also true that Harper is the least liked prime minister, from a francophone Quebecker point of view. He should make it clear, nonetheless, without being inflammatory, that he cannot tolerate a separatist premier. Then, backed by the Clarity Act, he should ignore Pauline Marois, to the best of his considerable ability.

  To many Canadians, the future of Quebec looks bleak as the preparation for the third referendum continues on. What Pauline Marois doesn’t understand is that Quebecois boomers are more interested in their pension income than starting a revolution. To quote from Pierre Trudeau:” Quebec doesn't want to separate. Two referenda have said so.”