To be or not to be

When the tsunami that hit south-east asia there was a flood of news coverage (pardon the pun) concerning the region. I remember finding out for the first time virtually everything I now know about places such as Indonesia and Sri Lanka. I found out for the first time that Sri Lanka was not part of India. I also learned about the strife between the government and the Tamil Tigers. I had heard about the Tamil Tigers before but never paid much attention. One of the things that I learned about Sri Lanka is that the Tamil Tigers are fighting for independence from the federal Sri Lankan authority. I remember thinking at the time why not just let them have the north portion of the island like they want? Wouldn't it be better than continuing to kill thousands of people on both sides of the fence? This of course reminded me of home.

I read today in the news that upwards of 54% of Quebecers are in favor of sovereignty.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/04/27/sovereignty-poll050427.html

Back in October of 1995 (hard to believe its been almost 10 years) Quebec held a referendum on whether to leave Canada or stay. The federalists won the day by a split of 50.6% to 49.4% which of course really answered nothing. For the past decade we have had rumblings of Quebec sovereignty and each time I think that in reality they have no real right to leave. I was reminded of this attitude when I was mentally telling the Sri Lankan government to simply allow the Tamil people to form their own country on the island. Of course my position on Quebec was now hypocritical because I was allowing the Tamil people something I was denying the french in Canada simply because I live in Canada. This of course is not good. So I did some thinking and I think I've made up my mind on the issue (I can hear you all shouting in celebration).

For me the main problem I have with the idea of Quebec sovereignty is that they don't truly want sovereignty. In fact the poll that was conducted this month as in the referendum of 1995 asked, what I consider to be, a flawed question. The definition of sovereignty is "complete independence and self-government." This I am willing to live with if it is what the people of Quebec choose. I of course have a few conditions.

First the question asked in the referendum must be clear. Something akin to "do you want to leave Canada? Yes or No." This in my mind is clear and cannot be misconstrued.

Second the terms of sovereignty must also be clear. I would be willing to give Quebec its total independence from Canada if the majority in Quebec chose to leave. This means that they are truly independent. They would not share our currency, our military or federal institutions. They would lose Canadian citizenship and all federal institutions would leave Quebec. It would mean that they would be treated as any foreign country with which we deal, namely they would have to send a diplomatic mission to Canada as we would to Quebec, borders would have to be stregthened, trade agreements would have to hammered out, etc. In the end they would become a seperate nation and the responsibilities of such would be solely theirs. I think that this matters a great deal as you can tell from the question that is asked not only in the poll, but in the 1995 referendum as well, "The poll conducted by Léger Marketing for the Globe and Mail and Le Devoir newspapers showed 54 per cent of decided respondents supported sovereignty if it included an economic and political partnership with Canada." It is the IF that matters. In my mind why should they be allowed to leave Canada but still benenfit from Canada? For me a yes vote is a vote for complete and utter independence.

Third they would automatically become a debtor to Canada equal to 50% of the total federal spending (including transfer payments) on Quebec over the past 20 years. For instance if the Canadian government dumped $50 billion in Quebec over the past 20 years Quebec would owe Canada $25 billion on the day they became sovereign and would enter into a payment plan as would be negotiated between the two governments.

Fourth a 12 month transition period would come into effect 21 days after the referendum (if the yes vote wins) during which time any person wishing to leave or enter Quebec would be able to do so without penalty. Also during those 12 months if any substantial or unique group wished to leave Quebec (for instance the Indian groups within Quebec) that they would be given the same priviledge that Quebecers had, namely a referendum on seperation. This referendum would be binding just as the one concerning Quebec succession would be.

Fifth if the no vote won, there could be no agitation for sovereignty for 50 years. If in 50 years time Quebecers wished to vote once again for sovereignty that would be their right however the same conditions would apply.

I think in the end if it meant leaving Canada or staying in Canada (given the conditions above which I believe to be fair) that the majority of Quebecers would choose to stay. I believe that those within Quebec who wish to leave given the question posed want their cake and to eat it too. They want the right to be independent of Canada as far as running the territory goes without interference from the federal government (in language laws for instance) but they want to maintain the benefits of Canada such as the money. This is unfair to the rest of Canada. If Quebecer's wish to form a sovereign nation, so be it. But in the end it has to be sovereign.

Also I think that given these conditions the majority of Canadians would allow a referendum in Quebec (am I wrong?). I also think that if a referendum were held that the rest of Canada would be better off. If they voted yes then at least we know and can move on from there without having the political time bomb of a referendum and a provincial party in the federal parliament hanging over our heads. It would effectively end the 'special treatment' that many within Canada feel Quebec receives all in order to appease the seperatists. If they voted no, then it too would end all of the speculation and we could get on with running the country and end the 'special treatment' as we wouldn't need to appease Quebec because of the threat of a referendum was just around the corner.

Just like the Tamil's if Quebecers want to leave Canada and strike out on their own, so be it, I wish them the best. However I think that issue does need to be handled in a definite manner with definite language so that the country can continue with those who wish to be in Canada.