Canada is not a nation known for making waves, so who could be blamed for being unaware of how close it came to disintegrating in 1995? In October 1995, ninety-four percent of Quebecers (meaning all inhabitants of Quebec, irrespective of ethnicity and mother tongue) turned out and narrowly defeated a referendum that could have set Quebec on a course to become a sovereign nation. Although Canada remains intact, this is heady stuff. Citizens of a successful and prosperous democracy such as Canada rarely go to the polls to decide whether to opt out of the social contract. Therefore, we at SoYouWanna.net are here to provide you with all you need to know regarding this serious matter. (OK, actually quite a bit more than you ever wanted to know aboot our otherwise quiet and reserved northern neighbors.)
1. LEARN SOME BACKGROUND ON THE ISSUE
Americans tend to take it for granted that citizens of modern democracies have willingly consented, through free elections, to being governed within their existing national borders. That many Quebecers should now seek to form their own nation doesn't fit with our expectations.
That is, unless you view Canadian history from a Quebecois (French Canadian) perspective. Then you would realize that it all goes back to 1759, the year of the Conquest. Sailing up the St. Lawrence River, General James Wolfe's British forces routed the French under Montcalm (his full name, if you're interested, was Louis-Joseph de Montcalm-Grozon, Marquis de Montcalme de Saint-Veran), at the Battle of the Plains of Abraham. Both Wolfe and Montcalm were killed in the fighting. Quebec City fell soon after and the British were well on their way to winning the Seven Year's War. At the Treaty of Paris in 1763, France gave up its sole inhabited North American colony. The Quebecois, numbering about 70,000 then, became British subjects.
The Quebecois suffered a feeling of double humiliation. First, they were now a conquered people. Second, it was insulting how easily the motherland had cut them loose.
For military conquerors the British acted with marked magnanimity. They allowed the Quebecois to continue their system of land tenure, but they forbade them from holding office unless the Quebecois adopted Protestantism. With the British army came English-speaking (Anglophone) settlers. The Quebecois still refer to them as "etrangers" - foreigners. The Quebecois came to believe their very existence was threatened. Even today their rallying cry is "survivance."
Throughout the early 19th century an Anglophone minority dominated a Francophone majority in Quebec. Resentful of their low status and disturbed by the increasing number of non-French immigrants from Europe, a number of Quebecois took up arms against the British in 1837-1838. The rebellion, named for the leader of the Parti Patriote, Louis-Joseph Papineau, failed miserably.
There were no further rebellions in Quebec. In 1867 modern Canada was created when the provinces of Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick confederated under the British North America Act. The constitution then adopted (and which lasted until 1982) provided for a strong central parliament in Ottawa and it guaranteed the rights of French Canadians. Section 133 of the Act recognized the use of French in the Quebec legislature and courts as well as in the federal courts and parliament. For the next century Quebecois nationalism was mainly channeled into a staunch Catholic clericalism. In a way, the Quebecois became more Catholic than the Pope - or at least they identified more strongly with Rome than with Paris. This stemmed partly from their humiliation at having been abandoned by France in 1763 and partly from the atheistic turn the motherland had taken during the French Revolution. Conservatism helped to preserve Quebecois separateness, though it probably held them back economically. Their Anglophone neighbors quickly began to dominate commerce in major Quebec cities like Montreal.
The Quebecois underwent a transformation in the middle years of this century. By 1970 Quebec had become the most urbanized province in Canada. Suddenly there was an identifiable urban professional class that was quite vocal about asserting Quebecois rights. Canadian historians term this the "Quiet Revolution" ("Revolution Silencieuse").
In 1968 a political party whose primary goal was Quebec independence arose. Led by Rene Levesque, the Parti Quebecois advocated "soverainete-association," that is, self-rule for Quebec while keeping economic ties to Canada. At the same time, more radical groups, taking inspiration from Fidel Castro, created some very un-Canadian mayhem. They bombed public places and kidnapped some high profile Canadian and British officials. In 1976 an overwhelming majority of Quebecers voted the Parti Quebecois into office. Times seemed auspicious for Quebec independence. One of the Parti Quebecois' first moves was to pass a French-only law, even though French had already been made the sole official language of Quebec in 1974. Bill 101, the French Language Charter, reflected the Quebecois' fear of becoming a minority in their own province. The Quebecois had a declining birthrate and were disturbed that immigrants wanted their kids to learn English instead of French. Canadian writer Mordechai Richler deals hilariously with the fallout of this and other French-only laws in his book Oh Canada! Oh Quebec! Requiem for a Divided Country.
In 1980 the Parti Quebecois finally put the issue of separation to Quebec voters. The referendum failed, though evidently there was enough residual interest in separatism for another referendum drive in 1995. Attempting to quell Quebec's dissatisfaction, Canada hashed out a revised constitution in 1982 that recognized the "distinctiveness" of Quebec. This wasn't enough to placate Quebec, which was the only province not to approve the reformed constitution.
The 1995 referendum nicely illustrates the ambivalence attending the issue of separation. Although polls indicate most Quebecers wish to remain part of Canada, it seems only a matter of time until another referendum gains momentum. That's the goal of current Quebec premier Lucien Bouchard, who has said he wants to foster a mood favorable to another referendum. Still, it is not entirely clear what a successful separation referendum would accomplish. Past referenda have been worded ambiguously, and it seems a final separation would have to be negotiated with Ottawa.
2. HEAR THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF QUEBECOIS SEPARATISM
"Quebec is a region with its own distinct economy, language, and culture, and should therefore be allowed to have its own independent political system."
The Argument: In order to preserve Quebecois culture, Quebec must form its own government. It does not belong in the Canadian Federation any longer.
Quebec already has the ingredients of a sovereign country: distinct language, history and outlook, charismatic leaders, and, most important, better bread. Quebecers are ready to cast off the ties that bind them to Canada. They are tired of having their concerns belittled by the other provinces. Legal recognition of Quebec's separate status would be just a formality.
French Canada was forcibly joined to English Canada. The union of the two peoples is unnatural and should be severed. Anyone who would deny Quebec the right to self-determination must be ignorant of Quebec's exceptional history. Champlain, Cartier. Merely listing the names of two French explorers gives a powerful sense of Quebec's glorious past. Quebec's destiny lies in becoming an independent nation.
The Response: The Quebecois should cease their divisive campaign. What further concessions do they require? Or don't they recognize any reasonable bounds to their selfish claims? Every time they're appeased, like back in 1982 with constitutional reform, they just complain more loudly (though maybe this is a stronger argument for letting them go). If the Canadian Federation is weakened through further decentralization of power, or still worse, the departure of Quebec, poorer provinces will be harmed. The Atlantic region is especially vulnerable. Not only will provinces such as New Brunswick and Nova Scotia be physically separated from the rest of the country if Quebec gains independence, they will lose badly needed redistribution payments. Sixty percent of Newfoundland's and Nova Scotia's budget comes from the all-province fund.
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.
