opinion
In the national debate over proposed Quebec separation, who speaks for Canada? The pre-eminent voice for national unity should be the prime minister, but last week he abdicated leadership on a key issue.
Prime minister Jean ChrŽtien has personally often been a vigorous defender of national unity. His government has been adept at establishing political consensus and, usually, avoiding bitterly divisive policies.
It’s in the grand Liberal tradition of using warm, fuzzy words and ambiguous generalities to paper over disagreements while compromises are worked out.
Read Also
University of Manitoba honours three agricultural alumni
Cathey Day, Fred Greig and Kim McConnell were chosen for the University of Manitoba’s 2025 certificates of merit from the agricultural and food sciences faculty.
But, with Quebecers due to vote in about a month in their provincial referendum on separation, this is no time for fuzzy language. On one issue above all others, the voters should be clear – will a “yes” vote in the referendum lead to separation?
The separatist forces in Quebec are deliberately clouding the issue by saying a “yes” vote will mean a stronger, healthier partnership with the rest of Canada. Even the referendum question minimizes the concept of separation.
The draft question states: “Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”
What does all that mean? The bill referred to in the resolution is a blank cheque to the separatist provincial government to make Quebec an independent and sovereign country.
What Quebec voters need to know is whether the federal government will agree to start the process of separation if only a bare majority of those voters say “yes.”
Despite repeated questions from Reform leader Preston Manning, prime minister ChrŽtien last week refused to give a clear answer, hinting instead that Ottawa might require a second vote, and/or a majority far greater than “50 percent plus one.”
ChrŽtien’s vagueness simply plays into the hands of separatist leaders who are telling Quebecers they must vote “yes” to be respected and get any type of constitutional change.
The prime minister’s waffling could well lead some to vote “yes,” even though they don’t want separation. That in turn could create an unstoppable separatist bandwagon.
Manning is correct to call for Quebecers to be given a clear choice.
The federalist goal should be to ensure that people do not vote “yes” in the referendum unless they are ready to live in an independent Quebec within a year or two.
Canada is not helped by politicians who play misleading word games.
