Does Canada’s constitution require the consent of the rest of Canada before Quebec can be allowed to become an independent nation? That was the question at the heart of last week’s constitutional squabbling. Confusing the issue is the fact that the debate is on two levels – legal theory and practical reality.
The legal side of the debate is relatively straightforward. Quebec lawyer Guy Bertrand has started court action to establish that the constitution does not permit unilateral declaration of indpendence, even if Quebecers vote for it in a provincial referendum. He argues that Canada as a whole must decide whether or not to allow separation.
Read Also
Late season rainfall creates concern about Prairie crop quality
Praying for rain is being replaced with the hope that rain can stop for harvest. Rainfall in July and early August has been much greater than normal.
Because the legal issue is clearly of national importance, the federal government decided to intervene in the court case so federal lawyers can present arguments.
That, predictably, sparked angry protests from Quebec politicians (including provincial Liberals), accusing Ottawa of denying Quebec’s right to self-determination.
The legal issue, however, is not as crucial as the practical politics of the situation. Regardless of the outcome of the court case, the rest of Canada has almost no choice but to accept a Quebec declaration of independence backed by a valid referendum.
The practical question is: Who would determine the terms of such a separation in those circumstances?
For most people, the answer is clear – all of Canada, including the people of Quebec, must have a voice in determining terms of separation.
Quebec should not unilaterally determine whether northern Quebec natives are forced to separate.
Quebec should not unilaterally decide whether its people continue to enjoy unfettered access to Canadian jobs, dairy markets or electricity.
A host of other examples could be cited, from share of the national debt to ownership of military equipment – and, notably, how a referendum should be worded to be valid.
The eventual legal verdict in the court case will have a moral influence on how these issues are resolved, but ultimately the issues will be decided by politics and public opinion.
Ottawa’s intervention in the court case is important not for legalistic reasons, but because it helps make the political point that all of Canada will determine terms of separation.
The message is that Quebec will not be able to pick and choose to create the best of all imaginary worlds.
For undecided Quebecers, that is a sobering message that could lead them to reject the separatist siren song.
Continued leadership from Ottawa can still preserve national unity.
We need more such leadership.
