Sovereignty, Secession and Unity

The issue of secession in the United States was settled by the stick of the Civil War.

Most Canadians do not have the stomach to prevent the breakup of their country by force. Historically Canada has relied on a series of carrots to hold the support of the regions.

The federal government assumed the debts of poorer provinces when they joined Confederation. It followed with equalization schemes between regions. This and spending on Employment Insurance and public health care has been the schmiergeld (“grease money”) that’s kept Canada working.

In the US a military challenge usually works to unite Americans. The opposite has been true in Canada.

Most English speaking Canadians supported the two world wars before Americans did. French Canadians preferred to remain neutral in what they saw as a foreign war.

Attempts to impose conscription on French Canadians led them to believe Anglo Canadians cared more about following Britain than building their own country.

It was not until the 1960’s and 70’s that English Canadians gave up their attachment to the UK to adopt a distinctive Canadian flag and anthem. By then many French Canadians had given up their attachment to Canada and were thinking of themselves as Québécois.

Despite bilingualism in the federal government and its institutions, a movement for Québec independence led to formation of the Parti Québécois which has formed the provincial government of Québec for 18 of the last 33 years.

PQ governments have held two Québec referendums on independence. This first, in 1980, carried only 40% of the vote, though about 50% of the Provinces francophones (French Speakers). In the second, in 1995 the independence side failed by less than 1%.

Shortly after, the federal Government enacted the “Clarity Act.” To dispel the impression by some Quebecers that they could they hold both Canadian and Québec citizenship after independence, the Act required that in future referendums the question must be clear.

The intent to secede from Canada must be clear, unclouded by language about a mandate to negotiate a new deal as in the Parti Québécois proposal of “sovereignty-association.”

The Clarity Act also stipulated that secession in a constitutional state cannot be unilateral. It would require negotiation between the parties over boundaries, assets and liabilities.

In Canada, unlike the US, the issue of secession has not been settled definitively. If support for the separatist option declines over the next few decades, future generations may look back on the Clarity Act as a turning point.

Most Quebeckers, even pro-independence, reject the label “separatist” in favour of “sovereigntist.” There is an irony here. The original Thirteen Colonies were considered “sovereign states” under the original American Articles of Confederation.

As a federation, Canada is among the most decentralized in the world. And sovereignty of any part or people is becoming unviable on a planet whose hope lies in Wholeness.