YES VOTE WOULD JUSTIFY UDI
by Michel Seymour

Canadian constitutional law does not explicitly allow for a province to secede. Yet some people claim that sovereignty can be attained via constitutional amendment and the subsequent consent to such an amendment by the Canadian provinces (seven out of 10, or perhaps all of them) as well as the federal government. They claim that Quebec's political sovereignty is illegal, that it cannot be declared unilaterally and that, should Quebec unilaterally declare independence, its territorial integrity would not necessarily be preserved.

What can be said in response to these arguments? One could indeed use the Canadian constitution to counter some of Quebec's moral and political arguments. Yet, by choosing to repatriate the constitution without the consent of Quebec and its National Assembly, Canada has in a sense helped to resolve this dilemma. Even if it were in principle possible to use the political weight of the constitution to oppose the political weight of Quebec's moral arguments, the balance leans in the latter's favour. The reason is that the constitution is illegitimate because it was imposed without the consent of the people of Quebec or Quebec's National Assembly.

Therefore, the events of 1982 justify a unilateral declaration of independence, if necessary. To claim that Quebec cannot attain sovereignty without Canada's consent ignores that Canada imposed its constitution without Quebec's consent. However, since it did so, Canada must be prepared to accept the consequences and accept the expression of the will of the Quebec people.

Quebec and Canada would nonetheless be wise to reach an agreement in the period immediately following a vote for sovereignty. Canadians could quickly come to an agreement concerning amendments to their own constitution which would take Quebec's sovereignty into account. A unilateral decision by Quebec must be considered a last resort, but a refusal to acknowledge Quebec sovereignty would be one way for Canada to force Quebec to make a unilateral declaration of independence. If the Canadian provinces and the federal government use their constitution to block this process, they will be the ones opting for force over law and imposing "constitutional legality" over democratic legitimacy.

Peoples create constitutions, constitutions do not create peoples. And when a constitution is imposed on a people against its will, they have every right to acquire a new one. If there are sufficient moral justifications, such a people could even resort to political sovereignty as part of this process. All in all, Quebec sovereignty only appears illegal in relation to a constitution that has been illegitimately imposed on Quebec. This is the reason why the Canadian constitution cannot be used to counter Quebec's proposed actions.

In reaction to Quebec's plans to hold a new referendum on sovereignty in the next few years, the Canadian government has been increasing its attempts to invalidate this endeavour. Canada has just taken the question of the legality of Quebec sovereignty to its Supreme Court, and it is clear that according to its constitution, the court will declare that Quebec must obtain the consent of the other provinces and the federal government to attain sovereignty.

Prime Minister Jean Chrétien has already stated that his government will contest the result of a referendum on sovereignty supported by the majority of the Quebec population. He claims that the federal government should formulate the referendum question, determine the percentage of the vote required to determine a sovereignist victory and even allow all Canadians to determine Quebec's destiny.

The Canadian government has also openly supported the partitionist aims of certain groups, which claim that they will remain part of Canada in the event that Quebec separates. Quebec's referendum law is being contested, and this case will certainly be carried to the highest courts in Canada. This law, which imposes spending limits on each side to ensure that the debate is conducted fairly, is considered very progressive by many political experts in the world.

However, the international media repeatedly casts doubt on the legitimacy and the democratic nature of Quebec sovereignty, and, whether intentionally or not, sows fear in the minds of the English-speaking minority and new Quebecers by raising the spectre of possible violations of their rights when nothing, in either the past or the present, could lead them to believe that such a thing would ever come to pass.

Short of suggesting that Canada is willing to resort to force or duress during the debate on the future of Quebec, it is clear that all of these actions are calculated to heighten tension and intimidate people.

If the majority of Quebecers vote in favour of sovereignty during the next referendum the Canadian government will doubtless try to claim that secession is not covered in the Canadian constitution, and ask other members of the United Nations not to recognize the sovereignty of Quebec before it does so itself. This would simply be its roundabout way of imposing the will of the Canadian majority on the Quebec people, as it did in 1982. Criteria for the recognition of Quebec sovereignty must be based on democratic legitimacy, not constitutional law.

(Michel Seymour is president of the Intellectuels pour la souveraineté (IPSO). This article, sent to 1,500 intellectuals around the world, was also signed by Lubin Bisson, Didier Calmels, Jean-Pierre Chelhot, Jocelyne Couture, Guy Lachapelle, Yves Nadeau, Kai Nielsen, Éric Normandeau, Ercilia Palacio, Paul-André Quintin, Michel Robert, Geneviève Sicotte, Daniel Turp, Louise Vandelac and Jules-Pascal Venne.)