3. HEAR THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST QUEBECOIS SEPARATISM
"No Canadian province, not even Quebec, has the right unilaterally to declare itself independent."
The Argument: Provincial self-determination is an outdated concept. Federalism is the appropriate political model for large states in the 21st century. It's the surest method to achieve regional and national interests and promote peaceful coexistence between different ethnic groups. Canada and the United States have done quite well as federal republics. Quebecers are shooting themselves in the foot if they decide to split off from Canada. What's their boeuf?
The Response: The legitimate basis for rule is consent of the governed. Quebecers no longer wish to be part of Canada and they shouldn't have to be.
"If the Quebecois care so much about the right of a people to self-determination, won't they then, if successful, have to recognize the right of other distinct groups within Quebec to declare their own independence?"
The Argument: Twenty percent of Quebec is Anglophone. They don't want to be even more subject to the will of the French majority, the likely consequence of an independent Quebec. Two-thirds of Quebec's land area is inhabited by the Cree and Inuit nations. And they predate the arrival of the French in Canada by a long stretch. If anyone should be clamoring for independence it should be these groups. Instead, they oppose Quebec separatism. Why? They fear what would happen to their constitutional rights under Quebecois rule. The French-only laws that already have been passed do not augur well for them.
Ethnic chauvinism is a Pandora's box full of nasty surprises. We need only point to the examples of former Yugoslavia and Rwanda to realize how bad things can get when one group is hell-bent on "realizing" its political self.
If Quebec secedes, it is unlikely it would let the resource-rich Cree and Inuit areas in the north remain part of Canada. This shows the hollowness of their concern for self-determination.
The Response: Once Quebec achieves independence, it will be faced with the same problems of meeting the concerns of diverse ethnic minorities that other western democracies must face. It is unfair to assume that an independent Quebec would be less sensitive or responsive to the needs of minorities such as Cree, Inuit, or anglophone Quebecers than countries like Canada or the U.S. are to the needs of their minority citizens.
The French-only laws that are in place were enacted in response to concerns about the integrity of Quebec's distinctive francophone culture. These concerns would be decisively met if Quebec gained its independence, so no further or more draconian French-only rules would be required.
"On its own, Quebec would be a weak, second-rate nation, with only one city of economic consequence, Montreal."
The Argument: Hundreds of Anglophone businesses left Montreal in the 1980s and relocated to Toronto in response to the separatist movement. Many more will seek other corporate headquarters if Quebec gains independence. A sovereign Quebec will be a debilitated entity. Are Quebecers prepared for all the economic and legal consequences of independence?
As regional blocs go, the North American system is pretty stable. An independent Quebec would throw off the balance. Imagine how much more complex it would be for Washington to have to negotiate separately with Quebec on important issues like environmental protection and trade. Quebec would probably be largely ignored.
The Response: Quebec is already very separate now, exercising sovereignty in many areas. On its own it is the world's sixteenth largest economy. Not all ties would be cut with Canada, and Quebec could probably be included in NAFTA. It is silly to think Quebec's interests will go more unnoticed if it becomes sovereign.
