The Case Of Quebec

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

So began John Hancock in perhaps the most eloquent justification of secession in the modern era. Unfortunately, such eloquence and reason are rarely to be seen nowadays, especially among those who would wrest Quebec from Canada. Just north of the border, an elaborate campaign is being waged to coax Quebec to sovereignty. It is poorly conceived, desperate and groundless. Thank God Quebecers are smart enough to see right through it.

Last month, the separatist Parti Québécois (PQ) government of Quebec launched 18 commissions to drum up public support for sovereignty. In what was to have been an explosive first month, the commissions have proven to be the latest flop in a series of failed attempts to kick-start nationalist passions. Only 38.5 percent of Quebecers in a recent survey indicated that they were "paying a lot or some attention" to the commissions. One source reported that in the midst of "many tough questions" on separation, the commissions produced "few clear answers." Support for sovereignty hovers at around 40 percent.

Such inadequate support for and interest in independence betrays a fundamental lack of legitimacy in the PQ's secessionist claim. Its squandering of public funds in light of this--the commissions, originally budgeted at $2 million, will top $5 million--is criminal.

Most scholars and the international community recognize some standards of legitimacy in secessionist claims: that claimants must be a `self-determining entity' with clear territorial bounds; that among this group, there must a clearly-expressed and incontestable will to secede for reasons of neo-colonial exploitation, denial of fundamental human rights, or functional subjugation or disenfranchisement; and that the new state must earn international recognition. The case of Quebec fulfills none of these criteria.

Although it is true that Quebec may be thought of as a self-determining ethnic group, it has no clear territorial bounds. The province itself contains large groups of anglophones and non-francophones, as well as an increasingly militant native community which has openly opposed being incorporated into a new Quebec state.

The province has never shown a definitive will to secede, and has further never defined such a will. In 1980, Quebecers overwhelmingly chose to remain within Canada in a referendum on the vague concept of `sovereignty-association.' Since then, support for independence has remained low. Then, as now, it is unclear as to whether a simple 50 percent majority would suffice to grant the government enough of a mandate to negotiate separation.

Quebecers are not in any way oppressed within Canada. Secessions are recognized in the modern era when a people desire fundamental rights and freedoms denied to them. For a nation which the United Nations repeatedly singles out as the best place in the world to live, any such claim of oppression or denial of rights is ridiculous.

Nations like Canada which conduct themselves "in compliance with the principle of equal rights... and possessed of a government representing the whole people... without distinction as to race, creed, or colour" are guaranteed protection against dismemberment by the 1970 U.N. Declaration on Principles. It is unlikely that Quebec, part of a respected nation and with no certain territory or claims to oppression, could ever gain recognition in the international arena without consent from Canada.

Still, the PQ stumbles along, wasting taxpayers' money and the legislature's time by producing its travelling circuses and declarations of independence. The separatist machinery in Quebec deserves to be dismantled now.

Patrick S. Chung's column appears on alternate Saturdays.