*This is a paper I presented for World Regional Geography at Metropolitan Community College. I received an A on this paper.

For many years, the sovereignty debate has raged in the minds of the people of Canada, specifically for the province of Quebec. Due to what many people say as irreconcilable differences, Francophones, or the French majority of Quebec, seek to run Quebec in their own way apart from Ottowa, the capital of Canada. The history for this seems to go back over a hundred years now, and is very much cyclical. It seems important to explore the background for this debate to understand why it is so significant. Currently, the topic seems to be in a downswing, and Canadians are wondering when it will again emerge as the primary issue. If sovereignty is again brought into the foreground and met with a positive vote, the effects will be widespread.

Quebeckers seem to have been rebelling against Canada for a long time, but the first time the issue of sovereignty was mentioned was during World War I. Canada was sending troops to assist the Allied nations on, what had been promised, strictly a volunteer basis. However, the romance of the war quickly wore off and fewer boys were seeking to risk their lives at the front for someone else. The Canadian military was not receiving the number of men it needed to keep up the fighting. So, in 1917, Prime Minister Robert Borden announced that compulsory service would become necessary after all. The English Canadians accepted this policy change, however the Francophones in Quebec were against any conscription. Riots broke out and relations between the French and English Canadians turned sour. J.N. Francoeur proposed that "Quebec would be disposed to accept the breaking of the Confederation pact if in the other provinces it is believed that (Quebec) is an obstacle to the union, progress, and development of Canada." Or, in other words, if they couldn't get along better then maybe they should separate (Maitrez 8).

The issue was put on the back burner, however, and not discussed further during the Depression of the 1930's. However, following the Depression came World War II, and Canada again instituted conscription. After the war, they found themselves enduring a decade and a half of corrupt rule under Premier Maurice Duplessis. During this time, small groups of people favoring separation formed and disbanded, but none could get together due to differing ideologies.

In June of 1960, the Liberal party under the direction of Jean Lesage won the provincial election, on the platform of reform. They used the slogan "Maitres chez nous" which means "Masters of our own house" and the next few years were spent cleaning up the government. This period of time was called "The Quiet Revolution." "The government vastly increased its role in the economy, the arts, and social services. A completely new education system was designed and put in place" (Maitrez 9). Lesage got Quebec's withdrawl from many cost-sharing programs, which angered premiers of other provences stating that Quebec got "special privileges." Lesage appointed to several cabinet posts Rene Levesque, who presented the Liberal party with his plan for taking Quebec a step beyond special status. When the party turned his separation plan down, he quit and then a year later became the leader for a new political party called Parti Quebecois.

Parti Quebecois quickly became the party in power and trounced the Liberals in the 1976 elections. Liberal Bryce Mackasey advised everyone not to panic. "Life will go on tomorrow. We're still a long way from separation…The important thing is not to panic. Your money is still protected in the banks" (Maitrez 10). Many did panic, however, especially the Anglophones of Montreal. Many moved their money to banks in Toronto, and tens of thousands of Anglophones moved, to the approval of many separatists, who saw chances of getting a sovereignty vote passed increasing.

Sovereignty was put up a vote for the first time in 1980, but Parti Quebecois worded the question vaguely in an attempt to receive more votes. The people of Quebec were not to be tricked, however. The strategy failed as 59.5% of Quebeckers voted 'no.' Simple majority was all that was needed to approve the vote, 50% +1.

A second referendum came up for vote in 1995, but voters were asked "to approve Quebec becoming a sovereign nation after a new political and economic partnership had been negotiated with the rest of Canada" (Maitrez 11) instead of asking for straightforward separation. This vote was much closer as 49.4% voted "Yes" and 50.6% voted "No." This is the closest vote that has ever occurred.

Bernard Landry is the current leader of the Parti Quebecois and the separation movement and began determined to fan some new life in to the "flame of sovereignty" (Maitrez 12). Several headlines ran boasting Landry's hopes, mostly within the Globe and Mail. Such headlines stated that:

"Landry vows sovereignty will be won 'very soon.' (Globe and Mail, 5 February 2001)

"Quebec to operate as sovereign nation new PQ leader says." (Globe and Mail, 23 March 2002)

"Support for sovereignty rises under Landry." (Journal de Montreal, 5 April 2001)

"Laudry sees new vote on sovereignty by 2005." (Globe and Mail, 20 August 2001)

(Maitre 13)

After these headlines ran, however, public opinion polls began to show that enthusiasm for an independent Quebec failing. Membership in the Parti Quebecois is falling, and in the summer of 2002, a poll showed that only 30% of Francophones currently supported sovereignty (Maitre 13).

One important thing to note is that in 1968, Pierre Elliott Trudeau became the Prime Minister of Canada and remained in office until 1984, with only a brief eight-month interruption during that time. Trudeau, being from Quebec, was fluently bilingual and completely bicultural. He was also a very smart man, and only Premer Levesque could keep up with his intellect. Trudeau believed that separation for Quebec would hinder the chances for French language and culture to prosper. He proposed the Official Language Act (1969) which made both English and French official languages of the Canadian government. In an impassioned speech given to Montrealers on the eve of the 1980 referendum, he promised that if Quebeckers would vote 'no' to the referendum that he would do everything to bring about a new Canadian constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Constitution and the Charter of Rights were completed in 1982, but Quebec has still to sign on.

How shall we think about the possible effects separation might bring to Quebec, to Canada and to international partners? It seems like the argument of separation is based solely on so-called "irreconcilable" differences between the French-speakers of Quebec and the rest of the English-speakers of Quebec and Canada. However, separation for Quebec would probably not be as beneficial as separatists would like Quebeckers to believe it to be. Many things would have to be taken into account. First of all, the Constitution of Canada does not have provisions set up in it to allow for separation (Solon.org). Most constitutions don't, as they are set up with the idea that the country will be forever united.

"It is therefore not surprising that states rarely provide for secession in their constitutions. The break-up of the country is ordinarily not contemplated as part of the original terms of union; to the contrary, a constitution generally looks to the continued existence of the union. The constitutions of most countries are silent on the issue of secession and, in a number of cases, preclude it. Even in those very rare instances where a state constitution recognizes secession as possible, certain key conditions must first be met. There is no general willingness to accept secession regardless of the circumstances, let alone on terms determined solely by the unit proposing to secede." (Monahan)

Before Quebec can officially become separated from Canada, an amendment must be made to the Constitution allowing for separation to happen and under what conditions.

If this happens and the sovereignty issue is met with a positive vote, the economic problems would probably worsen, not lesson, without the support system of an already secure nation. Businesses might decide to pull out of Quebec based on instability, which will add to the headaches already caused by high interest rates, taxes and unemployment. The number of people needing aid would rise and possibly surpass the government's ability to provide it.

If Quebec separates, it puts the rest of Canada at risk for separation. The secession of Quebec would separate the Maritime provinces from mainland Canada and a unilateral declaration of independence would most certainly result in a sharp drop in the value of the Canadian dollar, plunging Canada into a terrible recession.

Is it necessary to mention that the current Quebec government is hardly the first to criticize the federal government's attitude? Neither the Parti Québécois nor, for that matter, the Province of Quebec can claim a monopoly on the issue. A good example can be found in the September 28, 1981, ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada that struck down an appeal in which Quebec was joined by Manitoba and Newfoundland to challenge the legality of the Constitutional Act of 1982. A more recent example is the creation of the Reform Party in 1987, later to become the Canadian Alliance Party in 1999, that sprang from a growing movement in Western Canada in favour of greater autonomy. This clearly shows that Quebec is far from alone in voicing its grievances on the federal level, as the words of Jean Loiselle, former advisor and biographer of Quebec Premier Daniel Johnson Sr., illustrate in writing about the positions taken by Johnson and his Ontario counterpart, John Robarts, in the November 1967 Confederation of Tomorrow Conference (Canada Issues).

Already there is fierce disagreement between the Ontario and the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador on how the federal government has been handling the fishing industry of that province (Ottawa). Finally, the North American Free Trade agreement would need to be considered. Where would Quebec fit into NAFTA? Would Quebec become an equal partner, or would the rest of Canada, United States and Mexico reject them?

Interestingly enough, according to Murray Dobbin, "The idea of a genuine democracy &endash; even if it is largely at the municipal level, so far &endash; is irrepressible. It is spreading the world over and one would be hard-pressed to find a young anti-globalization activist in Canada who can't describe the Porto Alegre participatory-democracy model in detail. It is this model that is helping movement expand out from the serial confrontations with elite organizations like the WTO into the streets of their own communities and, significantly, to a serious rethinking of electoral politics. …After years of rejecting electoral politics out-of-hand as corrupted and irrelevant, many…young activist who are, in fact, defining the way politics will be done in the future are re-examining the state and electoral politics." This could indicate that the newer generation sees reform not in separation of their single province, but a complete reform of the national government as a whole (3). Porto Alegre participatory-democracy model is named after Porto Alegre, Brazil which has become famous among these young politicians as a source of social reform and a "visionary rethinking of democracy." (Dobbin 2)

The newest party on the horizon is called Action Democratique de Quebec, led by Mario Dumont. The ADQ disavows separatism as a near-term option, and is focusing on issues that have been put to the back burner the past several years because of the sovereignty crisis. "This is the biggest shift in Quebec politics in 30 years," says University of Western Ontario political science professor Ian Brodie, "Instead of talking about separatism, with two parties, one 'yes' and one 'no,' there is now room to talk about normal issues" (Quebec 20). One issue that might again brought to the foreground is the economic decline Quebec has experienced since 1970. Prior to 1970, while Quebec was under more conservative rule, the economy grew more rapidly than Ontario's. Justice issues have also been ignored during the past thirty years, and there is a strain of social discontent (Quebec 20).

Since the official language change by ex-Prime Minister Trudeau , the new generation of Quebeckers has easily adjusted to the change. "There's been a lot of talk lately to the effect that the conditions and resentments that fed Landry's generation of sovereigntists no longer exists. In large measure, that's true. The law that makes French Quebec's only official language means young Francos don't carry the feeling of repression of older people… Walk Montreal's legendary St. Lawrence Street &endash; known as St. Laurent now &endash; on a weekend night, and you see hip twentysomethings of different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds switching easily between English, French and often a third language" (Wilson-Smith 12). This could be a sign that the new laws that Trudeau helped to bring about are helping the new generation feel more at ease with being Canadian, instead of solely Quebec.

Sources Cited

Canadian Issues 9 May 2003 <http://www.canadianissues.ca/en_html/argumentaires_01.html>

Dobbin, Murray. "It's All About Democracy &endash; Not Sovereignty." Canadian Dimension. Nov/Dec 2002: p20-4.

"Maitrez Chez Nous." Canada & the World Backgrounder. Oct 2002: p8-14.

Monahan, P.J. & M.J. Bryant with N.C. Côté. "Coming to Terms with Plan B: Ten Principles Governing Secession." C.D. Howe Institute Commentary, Toronto. June 1996.

Solon.org. 11 May 2003 <http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/index.html>

"Ottawa dismisses Nfld. call to amend Constitution" CBC News, 9 May 2003. <http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/05/08/nfld_ottawa030508>

"Quebec's Surprising Swing to the Right." Report/Newsmagazine (Alberta Edition). 22 June 2002: p20-4.

Wilson-Smith, Anthony. "Life in the Old Quebec." Maclean's. 12 March 2001: p12.

Email me at tammie_meloy@yahoo.com