A long and winding road our constitution sets down the law of the land for most of us, except for Quebec, and that's a problem. (National Unity--The Constitution).

Twenty years ago, the Constitution came home to Canada, but Quebec did not then, and has not since, signed the document. The nationalist Parti Quebecois provincial government was excluded from the final negotiations of the legislation because of its demand for recognition of Quebec's special character and role as the home of a French nation within Canada. (Special status, yes, but not recognition as a separate nation.) So, 25% of the country's people remain outside its constitutional framework, divorced from its fundamental law.

Since the referendum of 1995, there have been efforts to persuade the people of Quebec to come into the constitutional fold--Prime Minister Jean Chretien's offer of constitutional veto to Quebec (and Ontario); the Calgary Declaration on national unity, which acknowledged Quebec's unique role in Canada; the Social Union, which Quebec didn't sign because of concerns that it allowed possible interference in areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as health and education. However, the federal government has taken a hard-line approach to Quebec by passing the Clarity Act in 1999. Prime Minister Chretien said any future referendum had to have a clear question such as "Do you want to separate from Canada? Yes or No." In his own linguistic style, Mr. Chretien put it this way: "They have a democratic referendum, they ask a crooked question, fine. So what? There will be no negotiations."

The Clarity Act came on the heels of the Supreme Court hearings in February 1998 into the legality of Quebec separation. Two years earlier, Ottawa had asked the Court to answer three questions: could Quebec secede unilaterally under Canadian law? Under international law? And in the case of a conflict, which would take precedence? In August 1998, the Court ruled that Quebec could not unilaterally secede under either Canadian or international law, but that if a clear majority of Quebeckers voted for separation in a referendum on a clear question, the rest of Canada would have to negotiate separation. The court left it to politicians to decide what constituted a clearly worded referendum and a clear majority. Of course, this became a source of disagreement. Lucien Bouchard was premier of Quebec then and he argued that a simple majority of 50% plus one would be considered a "clear majority." Prime Minister Chretien thought not. He and federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Stephane Dion said a much larger number would have to be in favour of separation before there would be any talks on sovereignty, perhaps two-thirds. According to an Angus Reid poll carried out at the time, 77% of Canadians surveyed agreed that 50% plus one wasn't enough to set the separatist wheels in motion. And, while Mr. Chretien said the federal government had the right to assess the question to ensure that it met the Supreme Court's call for clarity, Mr. Bouchard saw the wording of the question as the exclusive right of Quebec's National Assembly. Again, most Canadians agreed with the Prime Minister.

The (1999) Clarity Act sets out the terms under which a secession might happen, and establishes a legal framework for the process of negotiations that would follow a referendum. The key elements of the legislation are:

* There must be a clear question on whether the population of Quebec wants to be a state, separate from Canada.

* Once the question is tabled in the Quebec National Assembly, it will be referred to Parliament for review.

* After a referendum, and before negotiations are undertaken, any majority vote for separation will be referred to Parliament for a review of its clarity. Among the criteria to be considered will be the percentage of eligible voters, and any serious regional variations in the vote.

* After a clear vote on a clear question, the subjects that would be negotiated would include Quebec's borders, Quebec's debt obligations, a division of assets and liabilities, a guarantee of minority rights, and Aboriginal rights.

The list of things that will have to be negotiated in tile event of separation is a daunting one: it's meant to persuade Quebeckers that separation would be extremely difficult, involving so many contentious issues that they might think the cost of independence is too high.

The issue of Quebec's borders is among the touchy ones. The Parti Quebecois has always argued that the province should retain its current borders. But federalists say that wouldn't be right: Aboriginal peoples, who form a majority in the sparsely populated but resource-rich areas of northern Quebec and who are strongly federalist, should be able to keep their ancestral lands within Canada; regions of Quebec that voted in a majority, against sovereignty should be allowed to remain part of Canada. Some suggest the West Island of Montreal should stay in Canada as well with its strong federalist anglophone and ethnic population. If Canada is divisible, why not Quebec too?

On the 20th anniversary of the patriation of the Constitution, a new war of words erupted between Quebec and Ottawa. Quebec Premier Bernard Landry called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms a "profoundly undemocratic act." Why? Because it allowed judges appointed by Ottawa to diminish Quebec's language law, known as Bill 101. Mr. Landry savs Quebec is a nation, one that needs to achieve political sovereignty if it hopes to prosper and protect its language. "As a free nation," he says, "with all the powers of the National Assembly, we will one day give ourselves a country and a constitution, which will belong to us forever."

On the other side of the wrangling Prime Minister Jean Chretien called the Charter the most profoundly democratic declaration in Canadian history. One says "profoundly undemocratic," the other says "profoundly democratic." It doesn't look as though there's a lot of common ground here. Perhaps, the Quebec Liberal Party (QLP) is more accommodating.

In 2001, the QLP released a report on its many months of thought and consultation about the province's constitutional relationship with Canada. In part, the QLP says "Rather than re-launching the debate on premises based on confrontation, we prefer to rely on mutual trust and real dialogue between the partners in the federation. In addition, rather than opting apriori for general negotiations, we prefer to focus on a combination of specific improvements." That certainly sounds more Canada-friendly than either Mr. Landry or ADQ leader Mario Dumont.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. Draw up a list of advantages and disadvantages, for both Quebec and Canada, of Quebec separation.

2. Do a research paper on issues concerning the Aboriginal nations within Quebec.

FACT FILE

The question that nearly 50% of Quebeckers said Yes to in the province's 1995 referendum: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the Bill Respecting the Future of Quebec, and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?" Such a complex question does not meet Ottawa's clarity test.

Websites

The Clarity Act--http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-31.8/

Quebec Liberal Party--http://www.plq.org

Uni-ca--http://www.uni.ca/index_e.html

RELATED ARTICLE: That's pretty clear.

In a speech to the Nordic Association for Canadian Studies in Iceland in August 1999, Stephane Dion, federal minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, pointed out that Canadians aren't alone in thinking more than a simple majority of 50% plus one have to agree to divide a country.

In 1905, Norwegians approved separation from Sweden almost unanimously. They answered the question "Do you agree with the dissolution of the Union or not?" And, 99.95 % of them responded favourably.

"The union between Iceland and Denmark came to an end following a referendum that was held in Iceland in 1944," said Mr. Dion. "The question put to the Icelandic population was unequivocal: `The Althing (the Icelandic legislative assembly) resolves to declare that the Danish-Icelandic Act of Union of 1918 is terminated.' The Act of Union of 1918, which was subject to revision after 25 years, provided for the possibility of terminating the Union, but only under very specific conditions. For example, it required a majority of at least three-quarters of the valid votes cast. That requirement was greatly exceeded: the Yes side obtained 98.65% of valid votes cast."

Mr. Dion cites several other examples of what anyone would consider a "clear" majority. In Lithuania, 93.2% of the valid votes cast indicated a favourable response to the question: "Are you for the independent and democratic Republic of Lithuania?" In Estonia, 79.7% of voters said yes to the question: "Do you want the restoration of the state sovereignty and independence of the Republic of Estonia?" In Latvia, 74.9% supported "the democratic and independent statehood of the Republic of Latvia."

As Mr. Dion sees it, it's important for the people affected by a country's separation to feel strongly enough about it to maintain their stand "during the hardships that inevitably accompany a secession." And, he says, secession has "far-reaching consequences, both for the seceding population and for the entire state affected by the rupture, a virtually irreversible change that commits future generations (and needs the agreement of more than a simple majority of 50% plus one)."

RELATED ARTICLE: Looking outside the constitution.

The Quebec Liberal Party (QLP) set up a special committee in 2001 to suggest ways of resolving the constitutional wars between the province and the rest of the country. Benoit Pelletier was put in charge of the commission. Mr. Pelletier, a Member of the National Assembly for Chapleau, is a former law professor, and an expert on constitutional matters. As Chairman of the Special Comittee of the Quebec Liberal Party on Political and Constitutional Future of Quebec Society, Mr. Pelletier set out to update the position of the QLP on Canadian intergovernmental affairs. His report insists that most problems can be solved with nonconstitutional agreements.

"It is important to bear in mind that relations within the federation do not consist solely of constitutional negotiations," Mr. Pelletier writes. "Much is accomplished outside the constitutional framework, through executive or administrative agreements, court rulings, conventions, and intergovernmental negotiations. The affirmation of Quebec and the other provinces need not be tied to the constitutional issue; a lot can be done without touching the Constitution."

Here are a few more excerpts from his report:

"There is no question that Quebec society has a particular identity, due to its linguistic, cultural, legal and institutional originality, and its general way of life.

"The vision we propose favours the emergence of Quebec's (distinct character) in Canada and internationally while maintaining the Canadian federation intact. It is important to note that Quebec's (distinct character) is a fundamental component of Canada's identity, just like multiculturalism, our differing legal systems, and official bilingualism. However, we also want Quebec to be more sensitive to the needs and claims of the other provinces, and this requires a conciliatory attitude.

"... it seems to us that the majority of Quebeckers want to remain in Canada but refuse to accept a rigid conception of federalism. Quebeckers also want to improve their quality of life within Canada, not only socially and economically, but also with regard to identity ... there is now talk of greater convergence between the interests, concerns, and claims of the provinces, (which) seems to provide hope.

"In the Canadian federation, it is possible to belong to both Canada and Quebec. This fact cannot be overstressed. Both communities are vital, active, and rich in possibilities. We have every reason to be proud of being both Quebeckers and Canadians. These two allegiances are fully compatible, and it is desirable and beneficial to combine them. In other words, Quebec's participation in Canadian federalism allows Quebeckers to benefit from all the assets of an identity that, although unique, is two-dimensional, being shaped by Quebec and Canada.

"With respect to international affairs, it is very important to institutionalize Quebec's participation in major trade negotiations and certain international organizations, as a member of Canadian delegations."

For details on the report check out http://www.plq.org