|
“Canada has no cultural unity, no linguistic unity, no religious unity, no economic unity, no geographic unity. All it has is unity.”
— American economist and peace activist Kenneth E. Boulding
Advertisement
Two Canadian provinces are musing about separation. Lessons from 1995 help can help us figure out if the threats are real.
The Macro
I spent much of late hours of October 30, 1995 surrounded by angry Parti Quebecois protesters who were enraged by the fact they had lost the sovereignty referendum by the slimmest of margins.
Shortly after the results were known, and I had filed my main story, I joined a throng of journalists who dashed outside to get reaction to the results. We were not disappointed.
Leaving the club through a back entrance, we found ourselves caught between angry, rock and bottle throwing Péquiste protesters on one end and a cordon of police in riot gear on the other. Carefully negotiating our exit through the line of police, we were then trapped inside the cordon for four hours as police battled separatist protesters. It was a startling experience for a young journalist.
For the most part, I haven’t spent the intervening years worrying about whether another province would try to separate from Canada. Until recently, of course.
Both Alberta and Quebec are threatening to hold independence referendums. I have to say, the relatively low support for separatism makes musings about independence seem odd.
Recent polling from Ipsos in both provinces shows that support for independence is about 30 per cent in Quebec and 28 per cent in Alberta.
However, among the “yes” constituency, Ipsos found only half are diehard, committed separatists. Do the math — fewer than one in five Albertans and Quebecers are deeply invested in some sort of independence.
Even so, the timing couldn’t be worse. U.S. Donald Trump has openly, repeatedly advocated for Canada to join the United States. Even if that’s legally impractical, bordering on impossible, the eruption of disunity in Canada is not a welcome development.
How likely is it that referendums will take place?
In Alberta, current Premier Danielle Smith is very supportive of independence while the prospects for a third Quebec referendum depend on the results of the next provincial election.
Avenir Québec Premier François Legault has not supported a referendum, but he resigned in January rather than run again in an election he was likely to lose to a resurgent Parti Québécois, which is promising another vote if they win.
So, what is it Alberta and Quebec really want? It’s unlikely pro-separatist elements know for sure.
My experience from 1995 suggests “independence” is code for a completely undefined process for the legal re-alignment of the Canadian federation. A process that will remain vague even if referendums are launched.
That was certainly the case when former Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau initiated a referendum in 1995. The question put to Quebecers was whether Quebecers “agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having formally offered Canada a new economic and political partnership.” What does that mean? Neither Parizeau nor the “Oui” campaign offered any definition.
This is the profound flaw in the independence process: you cannot negotiate the terms of the “partnership” until you have a mandate from your citizens; thus, you must ask citizens to support independence in theory, with the details to be worked out later.
Parizeau saw this flaw as a huge advantage for the “Oui” campaign. After he lost the referendum, it was reported Parizeau had told sovereigntists before the vote that it would function as a “lobster trap.” In other words, if he could lure Quebecers into voting yes, they would be trapped and unable to protest the terms of separation.
You can hear echoes of Parizeau in the otherwise incoherent ramblings of the Alberta premier, who tries to position herself as merely tolerant and respectful of separatist ambitions, but who has really defined herself as the leader of the “Yes” campaign.
The terms of 2022 “Alberta Sovereignty Within a United Canada Act” is Smith’s tell.
Purportedly designed to empower the provincial government to take appropriate actions to combat anything it considered “federal government overreach,” the mere existence of the law suggests Smith thinks Alberta should exist separately within Canada. To that end, Smith’s government has also taken a number of steps to make it easier for separatist elements to trigger a referendum.
The important takeaway here is that if referendums take place, proponents will need to convince their citizenry to support a profoundly disruptive legal transformation without being able to tell people exactly how they will be affected.
Oh, and then there’s the issue of First Nations.
The Supreme Court has already suggested that political agendas pursued through referendum cannot trump treaties with First Nations. And First Nations have already told Alberta and Quebec separatists that their sovereignty dreams are not on.
Parroting separatist rhetoric may simply be a way for political leaders to retain support from hardcore separatists without ever having to actually seek separation. Either way, hardcore support for separation is not high in either province and is unlikely to grow once people realize what it really is.
A leap into the political abyss.
|
