I was reading the wiki article and this issue still seems to be simmering in Canadian politics. Is there any chance this will come to pass and Quebec will be sovereign?
Are the demands for sovereignty reasonable or just posturing?
As of now, Quebec seperatism is dead. I don’t see it happening in the near future.
I certainly think it’s possible. I think the Canadian government would allow Quebec to secede if the people of the province showed a genuine desire to do so. But so far, the majority of the people have been ambivalent of the subject.
I keep thinking of the dog who chases cars. What will he do if he catches one? Quebec would have a tough time as country. First of all it would face splinter movements from their ‘First nations’ who would prefer to remain in English-speaking Canada. These groups sit on top of all the valuable hydroelectric power sources.
Also, I wonder how Canada would do split between a rich Pacific/Prarie section and a poor Maritime region. Some have wondered if the Maritimes would want to join the US.
First of all, it should be mentioned that in Quebec, it is commonly considered that Quebec forms a nation. I haven’t seen surveys about which percentage of Quebecers consider Quebec to be a nation, but I’m certain it’s a majority, and a large majority. Both proponents of independence and “federalists” (who believe Quebec should remain a province in Canada) hold this opinion. A few years ago there was a unanimous motion in the National Assembly of Quebec (note the name, Quebec is the only province whose legislative assembly is named this way, which has been the case since 1968) recognizing the existence of the Quebec nation.
Now, if Quebec is a nation, it follows that they have the right to self-determination, which could go up to total independence. This is slightly more controversial. Most countries that have recently become independent or that will become independent in the next years (Bosnia and Herzegovina, Timor-Leste, Kosovo, Kurdistan, etc.) have an history of oppression at the hands of the country they were part of. This is not the case of Quebec. At some point, Quebec in Canada was similar to Ireland in the UK – and Ireland did become independent – but it is not the case anymore. Nevertheless, even the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that even though Quebec has no right to unilateral independence, if there is a strong enough movement in favour of independence inside Quebec, the rest of Canada will have no choice but to listen.
Most knowledgeable proponents of Quebec independence do so out of a sincere belief that being part of Canada prevents Quebec from affirming its status as a nation. After all, whatever might be said, Quebec may not currently enter into treaties with other countries, may not sit in international organizations, and does not have complete control on its immigration policy – immigration is a shared responsibility in the Canadian federal system. However – and this is something people from the rest of Canada and Americans have trouble understanding, so listen well – knowledgeable proponents of Quebec independence have no hostility towards Canada as a nation. If you ask politicians such as André Boisclair, leader of the Parti québécois (provincial separatist party) or Gilles Duceppe, leader of the Bloc québécois (federal pro-Quebec independence party), they will tell you that Canada is a great country, a great nation, but that Quebec just has no part to play in it, and that continued provincial status for Quebec just hurts both sides. There is no “posturing” here, they want independence and will pursue it through political means.
I’ve seen it estimated that around 30-35 % of the Quebec population are convinced separatists. They are convinced of the necessity of the Quebec nation acquiring independence, and their idea probably won’t change. This is why Quebec independence will remain an important political force for the forseeable future: an important minority of the population believes strongly in it. As well, there’s a number of people, which I might estimate at 20-25 % of the population (no cite, I may be completely wrong) whose opinion on the subject varies depending on the political climate. For example, in the early 90’s, there were discussions in Canada about the Meech Lake accord, whose goal was to modify the Constitution to, among other things, accommodate Quebec’s national ambitions. This accord fell through due to disparate opposition and general lack of enthusiasm, but it was seen by many in Quebec as a proof that the rest of Canada wouldn’t recognize Quebec as more than a province like any other – which is actually the opinion of many people in the rest of Canada. Due to this fact, the Yes side in the 1995 referendum was able to get support from 49.4% of voters. It still failed, so for the next few years support for independence decreased towards the baseline. Then, in 2002-2003, we learned about the sponsorship scandal, and what Quebecers remembered from this was the the federal Liberal government of Jean Chrétien had tried to buy federalist support in Quebec through cheap ad campaigns, while lining their pockets through fraud. This also insulted the “soft nationalists” described earlier, which led to a resurgence in pro-independence sentiment. Now, we’re in another down wave for the separatist cause, since the current Conservative federal government has promised to allow Quebec to have a certain international voice, and to solve the so-called “fiscal imbalance” issue. So people consider that it is now possible to discuss with the federal government. This trend may or may not continue; there have been recent criticisms in Quebec of the federal government’s foreign policy.
(To be continued in my next post…)
Paul in Saudi mentions that an independent Quebec would have a tough time existing as a country. While it is impossible to know how hard it would actually be, it is almost certain that the first years would require some adjustments, but that the country would pull through. Most knowledgeable proponents of independence recognize this, but they think that independence is still a necessity. However, they realize that this “uncertainty” factor is one of the reasons why many Quebecers choose not to favour independence. Building a country is scary and difficult at first. So, of course, when speaking about independence, they mostly speak about the “good sides” of the whole thing. I’ve been into arguments with English Canadians here who claim that we’re being “lied to” about the pros and cons of separation. I don’t think anyone is being lied to, but I know that people who pursue a goal will focus on the positive effects of attaining this goal. That’s what politics is all about. Opponents of independence are as guilty of playing the facts in their favour.
As for the possibility that the First Nations would try to separate from Quebec to rejoin Canada, it is actually kind of hard to know what they would try to do. It is entirely possible that they would find that remaining part of an independent Quebec would be in their best interest. We’ll cross that line when (if) we get to it. And even if most members of the First Nations decide that they would be better to remain in Canada, I’m uncertain about whether they have the legitimacy to do so. First, how do you define a “member of the First Nations”, in the first place? I guess there is an official definition somewhere, which I would like to know, but is it contested? Second, do you give First Nations in general the possibility to separate from Quebec, or every nation? Thirdly, how do you determine the territory they have a right to? While Quebec is a defined political entity with a determinate territory, the First Nations, as far as I know, aren’t. And finally, would you allow the First Nations to separate from Quebec even with Quebec remaining in Canada? I’ve touched these arguments a bit in [thread=377987]this thread[/thread], starting with [post=7571633]this post[/post] (third paragraph from last), if you’re interested.
So self-determination is a right for Quebecers, but not for the First Nations? Why is that?
Separatism is a slippery slope. If it is OK for Quebec to find its own destiny, does the same right extend to the western portion of Quebec? How about the house two streets down from you? The line must be drawn somewhere of course. Too often it is drawn by a majority to oppress a minority.
But more than that, what does it mean that Canada, that most admirable and reasonable of nations cannot hang together Francophone and Anglophone? What that does mean for the rest of humanity that is split Black/White, Gay/Straight, Man/Woman?
Do we have a right to self-determination? Of course? Should we exercise it? Except en extremis, probably not.
I’m not saying it’s not a right for them, just that trying to define them as a nation with a defined territory isn’t an easy task. Reread the arguments in my last post.
Simple: Western Quebec – where I’ve lived for all my life, and to which I am attached – isn’t a separate nation, not by any imaginable standard. Now if you ask me to define what is a nation and what isn’t, I may have some difficulty finding a formal definition, since all nations are different and none of them have become nations in the same way, but it suffices to say that us Western Quebecers consider ourselves as Quebecers. We have centuries of shared history and culture with the rest of Quebec.
As I said, nations should have a right to self-determination, but non-nations don’t really. You can’t, for example, declare your house an independent territory because you’re tired of paying taxes.
I should now mention that the question of Quebec independence isn’t, despite the popular opinion, even of many pro-independence voters, a French vs. English issue per se. If Quebec is a nation (and according to some, should therefore obtain its nation-state to deal with other nations as an equal), it is in fact in large part because Quebec developed for the last centuries as a French-speaking nation while the rest of Canada developed as an English-speaking nation. But now the differences aren’t only language-based. Notice that Quebec has an anglophone minority – which, it is true, identifies for the most part as members of the Canadian nation rather than the Quebec nation, with some exceptions – and that the rest of Canada has a francophone minority, the members of which in my experience identify as members of the Canadian nation, while being committed to preserving their language.
The reason you’re asking this question, in my opinion, is that English Canada has never really defined itself as a nation. First, English Canadians considered themselves as British, and then, when the Queen’s country started to become a distant memory and the West was being colonized by Eastern Europeans who assimilated into English Canadian culture, they started to redefine their identity to make Canada itself the nation-state, a perfect example of bilingual and multicultural nation. This is an important Canadian founding myth, but it is still a myth. There really isn’t that much shared history and culture between Quebec and the rest of Canada, much less than what you’d expect in a true nation-state. I’m not saying this means we must break the country up. We have here two nations who have lived mostly in peace with each other for a long time, and who have acquired a certain amount of baggage that make them belong together, but two different nations nonetheless. It’s time to realize that.
Certainly western Quebec is not a nation yet. But we can all agree that the people of western Quebec enjoy the same right of self-determination that all other people on earth enjoy. If they were to vote to become a part of Anglophone Canada, or for that matter Tasmania, it would be their business alone.
If however you admit that the people of the rest of Quebec enjoy some sort of veto over the will of the Western Quebecers, then we can draw the analogy that the people of the rest of Canada have some sort of veto over the will of the entire Quebec nation.
Of course it seems to me that in truth the Anglophone are just about ready to let the Francophones go. As I said that would be a real shame.
That sounds like what my man Ignatieff is saying. What’s the reaction to him where you are severus?
Severus… can you give some actual cites and numbers from those knowledgable proponents?
I’d like to see where they come up with their ideas of how Quebec could financially survive and thrive as an independant state.
Do you have any sources you might be able to point us to, to show how it will work?
I have a problem with a lot of severus’s points because a lot of it is supposition and opinion. What is a nation? This has to be defined before you can consider calling Quebec a nation. The Assemblée nationale is named as such because they chose to name it that, to assert a notion of distinction from the rest of Canada. Regardless of any other opinion, this is truly a French-English issue, historically and currently. Just choosing to call Quebec a nation belies the fact that it’s entire history is as bound up in what now constitutes Canada as any other part of this country.
What further disturbs me about the notion of separation is this idea that it would be to anyone’s benefit. What makes a nation like Canada one of the world’s greats is that we have managed to build what is, so far, pretty much the best example of a peacefully tolerant nation where all are welcome. I’m not saying there aren’t others, but the subtle undercurrents of racism and prejudice, while extant here, are not nearly as influential as in other nations with more chequered pasts. Canada is the place for peaceful understanding, and we really have a nation where everyone can get along. That is, except some people in Quebec, who feel that this is not for them. This would not be helped by one province deciding to leave because they speak a different language and thus feel like they’re different from the rest of us. Every province in this country is different, distinct in it’s own way, regardless of language. Ask a Newfoundlander a question and then a Manitoban and you’ll get two different answers. What makes this nation so wonderful is that we embrace those differences and are enriched by them.
There is nothing about Quebec’s history that is separate from the rest of this country, and everything that exists in Quebec has been influenced by our shared past. Same with the rest of Canada. The beauty of it all is that despite our differences, we can live so happily and peacefully together, and be the kind of place people want to move to from all around the world.
And at first, les Quebecois defined themselves as French; in fact, before the Seven Years’ War, New France was far, far more dependent upon its mother country, and far less free, than Britain’s colonies.
Quebec’s self-image as a people separate from France began, by necessity, in 1760. English Canadians began developing the same thing later - but not much later. The process began in 1812 and accelerated through the 19th century; you can’t possibly argue that Canadians did not just think themselves “British” or else you can’t explain why they wanted to form a separate country in the first place. If they were just British, why go through Confederation?
**scule’s ** last point is critical; the notion that Quebecois and everyone else somehow developed separately simply isn’t true; they developed together.
It’s certainly “mythical” to think it’s perfect, but really, who thinks it’s perfect? I’ve never in my entire life met a Canadian who thought things were perfect. Nobody thinks that.
All nations have their founding myths, of course. Quebec has plenty of mythology. But you seem to be saying “Well, Canada isn’t a nation because they think they’re perfect.” Well, they don’t, and even if they did that doesn’t change the fact Canada is a nation.
Nationality is not a clear divisor or an exclusive club. Quebec, by a very stringent definition, is a nation; so is English Canada; so is Canada as a whole, including Quebec. Stressing the Quebec “Nation” while pretending the Canadian “Nation” does not exist is disingenous.
That is, quite honestly, thoroughly insane. You’re telling me that they’ve been the same country for over two centuries and there’s no shared history? Are you serious? Aw, come on, man, you know better than that.
No shared culture? Go to a hockey game sometime.
Canada is hardly a unique case, anyway, scule’s commentary notwithstanding. Lots of states are amalgams of multiple nationalities. The United States is actually an amalgam of, well, states. The United Kingdom incorporates two kingdoms, a principality, and part of a separate country. Belgium is two nationalities. Switzerland is three. God, look at India - nineteen national languages! (And they split one big one off - Pakistan - and look at the history of love and peace that has resulted.) Even France was once multiple regimes and nationalities. Germany is an even more recent unification job than Canada, and I’m not talking about East and West.
I would like to second scule’s questions, severus, and I say this as a respectful but largely ignorant American. How are you defining “nation”? And even if the Quebecers decide that it is, why is that decision up to them? And why must the rest of Canada respect that decision, should they disagree?
You also said “Even the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that even though Quebec has no right to unilateral independence, if there is a strong enough movement in favour of independence inside Quebec, the rest of Canada will have no choice but to listen.” What does this mean? If Quebec decides to secede, has the Canadian Supreme Court held that the federal government can’t intervene to prevent it?
I’m also confused about how you can say there are two different nations but that wouldn’t “break the country up,” so I would appreciate it if in addition to defining “nation” you could define “country,” since I assume to you there is a difference.
No, I would not agree with this. I think it is fair to give the right to self-determination to entities that have reached the status of nations. In fact, I would have to check, but I think this is usually restricted to oppressed nations – which Quebec isn’t, at least not now – but as I said earlier, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that if the push for separation inside Quebec becomes too strong, the rest of Canada will have no choice but to negociate. But, for example, Montana can’t separate from the US and join Poland. Montana isn’t a nation separate from the American nation. They do not consider themselves as such, and they haven’t evolved separately from the rest of the US.
Well, there’s a distinction between a nation and a state. A state is a country. But a country can contain several nations, or parts of nations. For instance, the United Kingdom contains England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, plus a few bits of flotsam and jetsam attached to the Queen but not actually parts of the UK, like the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, but which might as well be parts of the UK. England is a nation. Scotland is a nation. Ireland is a nation. And the UK is made up of those nations and bits of nations united.
Same with the former Czechoslovakia, or Soviet Union. Belgium is a state comprised of French speakers and Dutch speakers, even though there exists a larger French nation and an external Netherlands. Germany used to consist of several states (this is before WWII)…Austria, Prussia, Bohemia, etc.
I see I have been asked several questions. Give me time, I’ll try to answer them all.
Ignatieff? I’ve never read his works, but the impression I have of him is that he basically denies that national feeling can lead to anything except ethnocentrism and exclusion. So no, that’s not the same as what he says. I think Ignatieff would consider that the fact that a large part of Quebecers consider Quebec to be a nation, different from the rest of Canada, somehow “proves” that we are obsessed with the purity of our ethnic stock. On the other hand, Quebec national feeling can (and should) very well be inclusive and accepting of others, immigrants for example.
As for the reaction to Ignatieff where I am, I must admit that he’s not very much talked about, but the main thing that’s discussed is that he looks a little too much neoconservative for some.
I have some sources, but as you’ll guess, they are strongly contested. François Legault, former Education and Health minister in the Bouchard and Landry cabinets, current Economic development and Finance critic, and a businessman, has produced a document – available on his website – showing what the finances of an independent Quebec would look like. His conclusion is that independence would strongly improve the finances of Quebec. However, his predictions have been criticized by many. I did a quick search and I saw that the main criticism coming from Finance minister Michel Audet was that Legault underestimated the possibility that Quebec’s GDP will decrease following independence, and that the financial markets could react negatively.
To add to my last post, while Legault has been criticized as being overly optimistic in his predictions, no one in Quebec seriously claims that Quebec couldn’t survive the economic perturbations following independence. No one claims that we’d basically become a third-world country, for example. There are only disagreements on how hard it would be economically to achieve independence.