Politicians and the Unity Debate

By Andrei Kreptul, Intern, The Fraser Institute

In recent months, developments on the issue of Quebec independence illustrate the futility of relying on the federal political process to resolve this intensely contested political debate. It is a game, endlessly played out by vested federalist and separatist interests with their own visions for the future of Canada and Quebec’s relationship within it (or without it). Since the players cannot resist relying on employing calculated tactics for quick political gain, it is virtually guaranteed that there will be no final resolution to this issue in the foreseeable future, unless a different approach is used.

For starters, there was the move made in February of this year by the federal government to pressure the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision on the legality of Quebec’s right to unilaterally declare its independence. The move gave the Chrétien cabinet the ability to share the political heat with the judiciary while not having to deal with the issue on a continuous basis as the Court took its time to come up with its decision. Sure enough, in August, the Court came down with its ruling that Quebec does not have the right to unilaterally separate, either under the Canadian Constitution or international law. The Court’s decision basically states that although “the government of Quebec can pursue secession “there would be no absolute legal entitlement to it,” and that “under the Constitution, secession requires that an amendment be negotiated.”

Both federalist and separatist interests are now able to give the proper political spins as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision. The federal government can show the Canadian public, with great confidence, that they have done something about clarifying the terms of a unilateral separation scenario, and that the Supreme Court has come down in favour of the federalist side. For the separatists, the Supreme Court’s decision stands as further proof that the rest of Canada will become an obstacle in Quebec’s aspirations to leave Canada on its own, which could put real pressure on federalists in Quebec.

The other event involved the election of former federal Progressive Conservative Leader Jean Charest as Quebec Liberal leader. According to a variety of pundits and experts across the country earlier this year, Charest was “the man,” the anointed saviour expected to reconcile the differences between federalists and separatists in order to keep the country from breaking apart. However, recent indications that Charest’s political honeymoon has come to an end were confirmed by a poll conducted this summer by Compas and the Financial Post. Support for the Quebec Liberals now hovers at 42 percent, down from 54 percent in the spring of this year, while the Parti Québécois stands at 53 percent of popular support, up from 37 percent.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision on Quebec’s constitutional right to secede, the true effectiveness of Charest as the undisputed poster boy for federalism will certainly be put to the test. Now that Quebec separatists have been told by the Court that they must negotiate their way out of Canada if they achieve a successful “Yes” vote, Charest will no doubt have his hands full trying to determine which way the political winds are really blowing. For Canadians to expect Jean Charest to successfully become all things to all parties is highly unrealistic. Ex-Liberal leader Daniel Johnson can undoubtedly attest to that.

As long as the threat of Quebec separation is dealt with using short-term political tactics, a final resolution will never emerge. It is almost as if Canadian politicians like to use the Quebec issue as a political card of convenience, one that can be put to use when there is an opportunity to be exploited. Herein lies the hypocrisy of the political process on the unity question. On the one hand, politicians tell us constantly that they are growing tired of discussing Quebec and the constitutionality of separation. But time and time again they are the first ones to stand up and voice their uncompromising commitment to preserving Canada as one nation, all done on behalf of each and every Canadian citizen.

All Canadians, as free-thinking individuals acting in their own self-interests, have their own ideas about what their country should look like. The survival of a nation must be determined by the daily interactions of millions of its citizens, even if their actions might result in Quebec independence or regional separation or even in the creation of a hundred new sovereign territories. This form of social organization is what the late Nobel Laureate and Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek commonly referred to as “spontaneous order.” As David Boaz of the Cato Institute wrote in his recent book, Libertarianism, “Law, language, money, markets—the most important institutions in human society—arose spontaneously.” And so it should be with the concept of nationhood. The reason why a bottom-up, spontaneous form of civil society is so important is that it is a society built on the basis of free action and choice, without any strict course in mind. The hopes, dreams, and wishes of all Canadians as played out in daily life will ultimately determine the fate of the Canadian nation.

The Meech Lake Accord, the Charlottetown Accord, the referendums in Quebec, endless First Ministers Conferences, and the exclusion of Quebec in the drafting of the Canadian Constitution, are all a testament to the disconnect between the political elite and the population at large. The mess continues with issues like the legality of Quebec separation and the “great Canadian hope” as embodied by Jean Charest. To continue relying on self-serving politicians, each one with their own grand visions of national unity, is surely a recipe for continued disaster.

info@fraserinstitute.ca You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.

If you know someone who would be interested in this web page, please enter their email address below, and we will forward this URL to them: Email Address:

Last Modified: Wednesday, October 20, 1999.