CHAPTER 12
Questions about the process
“If the PQ wants a united, peaceful Quebec it should sign a social contract with all communities before any referendum, not afterwards. It couldn’t do it, some would say, because Anglo Quebecers will never accept to swap Canada for Quebec.”[106]
-Jean-Claude LeClerc
Contrary to what Jean-Claude LeClerc
says above, you’re saying that Anglo Quebecers will swap Canada for
Quebec via the Two Question referendum procedure, in which the people who now
live on the territory that will become Quebec West only get their own province
in an independent Quebec -- and control over their civil rights -- if they
neutralize their no block vote. Is that it?
Yes. And it is this combining of two issues -- independence and getting their
own province -- and the fact that Quebec West residents vote by themselves on a
day prior to Quebec Proper voting that is the key to the success of the Two
Question Referendum.
Why is it necessary to have two questions over two days?
Separating the vote-taking for the residents of Quebec West and Quebec Proper
over two days ensures that each community lives up to each side of the bargain.
The format ensures that the non-Francophone community, if they vote a majority
"yes", gives the nationalists what they want: neutralization of their “no“ block
vote. It also ensures that the nationalists give the non-Francophones what they
want: full civil rights and self-determination status. Both communities thereby
live up to their respective sides of the bargain.
You're making the nationalists out to be generous philanthropists when it
comes to giving the non-Francophone back their rights.
They won't give them back without some pretty stiff conditions attached.
In effect, the format of the Two Question Referendum enables the PQ to say to
the non-Francophones: You can have your cake but you can’t eat it, too. We'll
give you full individual and minority rights but we're not going to give you the
opportunity to heavily skewer the independence referendum to the "no" side as
you did in 1980 and 1995. The only way to get what you want --- your rights --
is if your "no" vote on independence is neutralized.
I recall the “absolute patriot” and “Canada at all costs” forces you yourself
invoked earlier. I don't care what you’ve come up with, you aren’t going to get
the non-Francophones to vote "yes" on a sovereignty referendum!
They most certainly will…provided that Quebec West’s non-Francophone perceive
there to be a strong possibility that Question 2 on Day 2 would get a majority
“yes”.
In order to arrive at what, at first glance, may appear to you and virtually
everyone else on the planet to be an impossibility, carefully consider the
scenario of events that will lead up to voting on Day 1. Once this scenario is
examined, you will see how such an apparent impossibility can occur.
Go ahead.
Independence can only happen once the Part Quebecois gets into power. However,
the PQ is politically astute; they will only hold a referendum on independence
if the climate and timing is right and they believe a referendum can actually be
won.
Consider polls: several times a year, polls on Quebecers’ desire for sovereignty
are made public. Once a referendum is announced, these polls will become more
frequent, as happened during the run-up to both the 1980 and 1995 referendums.
As voting day approaches, imagine if polls indicate a preference for
independence; that is, a majority “yes” on Question 2 on Day 2.
Under such a scenario, non-Francophones will realize, as Day 1 approaches, that
independence is a real possibility. They will begin to think: “gosh, the numbers
favouring the ‘yes’ option are so strong that even factoring in the 20% block
"no" vote factor on Question 2, the ‘yes’ side will still carry the day. And it
was really, really close last time. We came within a whisker of losing; so it is
not outside the realm of possibilities that the ‘yes’ wins.
“If there's going to be a majority ‘yes’ vote then I can, in the privacy of the
voting booth, safely hedge against this unfortunate event. I certainly don't
want independence; but if it's inevitable I certainly don't want an independent
Quebec in which my individual and minority rights are controlled by the
nationalists. I really don't have much to lose by voting ‘yes‘, but I sure as
hell have a lot to lose by voting ‘no‘.”
This is the “hedge against the inevitable” factor. It is the force that will be
responsible for a majority "yes" vote on the part of the non-Francophones on
Question 1, as suggested above.
Tell me more about the "hedge against the inevitable" factor.
The Two Question Referendum is based upon the premise that, if independence is
inevitable, the non-Francophone community should make the best deal possible out
of this inevitability.
We talked earlier about the "absolute patriot" and "Canada at all costs" factors
and how these forces worked against the non-Francophones. We also discussed how
these forces would have to be neutralized in order for any solution to have a
chance of winning.
These factors are not as absolute as everyone may assume them to be. Their
effect can be neutralized by the employment of the "hedge against the
inevitable" factor. Self-preservation is a much stronger and more powerful
force.
Stated simply, the "hedge against the inevitable" factor means that when an
unwanted situation appears to be inevitable, people will take a course of action
that minimizes the negative effects of that inevitability.
So you're saying that the Two Question Referendum will only work if -- and
only if -- the non-Francophones are convinced that their 20% no block vote will
not be enough to tip the scales to their side ...
Precisely...and since independence is going to happen anyway, they will think:
why not at least have our own province within an independent Quebec with full
control over our individual and minority rights!
Question 1 gives the Government of Quebec the mandate to become an independent
country, a concept totally abhorrent to the vast majority of non-Francophones.
Yet the Two Question Referendum format will enable the non-Francophone community
to do the unthinkable: instead of opting for Canada -- as they have always done
-- they will vote "yes" on Question 1 thereby abandoning Canada -- which has
long abandoned them -- and opt for independence.
The relationship of the propensity of the non-Francophones to vote "yes" on
Question 1 with the perception that independence is inevitable is depicted in
Figure 5 -- Propensity of non-Francophones to vote “yes“ on Question 1.
Figure 5 -- Propensity of non-Francophones to vote “yes“ on Question 1
What if polls leading up to referendum
day indicate that independence is not inevitable and it looks as though Quebec
will, once again, opt for Canada? "
Then the non-Francophones of Quebec West will not vote "yes" on Question 1.
The Two Question Referendum only works -- and is only designed to work -- if
independence is perceived as inevitable. Unfortunately, if the people of Quebec
West and Quebec Proper choose once again to stay in Canada, Quebec's non-Francophones
will continue in their present unacceptable situation.
Day 1 is judgment day. The people of Quebec West will be forced to confront
themselves with a question we've all been avoiding: What is more important:
individual rights or Canada?
Let's not shy away from asking a tough question because we’re afraid to know
what the answer will be. Fear leads to uncertainty and uncertainty eventually
leads to chaos. We’ve been living long enough in Quebec with uncertainty and
fear. I, for one, can't go on any longer like this; so let's decide the issue
one way or the other and then get on with our lives. Enough already.
Why can't all citizens -- of both Quebec West and Quebec Proper -- vote on
Question 1 on the same day?
The Two Question Referendum would not work if residents of both Quebec West and
Quebec Proper were polled on Question 1 on the same day because this type of
format would not have the effect of nullifying the 20% block vote.
Suppose everyone was asked Question 1 on the same day; the non-Francophone of
Quebec West would realize when he went into the voting booth to cast his ballot
that if the “yes” option carried the day he would be getting Quebec West no
matter how he and the rest of Quebec West voted. Where is the incentive for the
non-Francophone to vote "yes" on Question 1? He would just as soon vote "no"
hoping, of course, that the majority voted "no" so as to keep Quebec within
Canada. And, in the event that the majority voted "yes", the non-Francophones
would still get Quebec West.
This would be tantamount to having your cake and eating it, too. This, of
course, the separatists would never go for. The referendum must be set up in
such a way that the separatist -- if he is willing to concede Quebec West to the
non-Francophones -- gets something from this concession, namely the
nullification of the non-Francophone no block vote. Segregating the voting over
two days achieves this because it forces the non-Francophones to vote for
independence along with Quebec West.
What if a resident of Quebec West doesn’t care that much about individual
rights and freedoms and would prefer that Quebec remain within Canada?
If anyone in Quebec West prefers to vote "no" for independence then they should
vote "no". But the risk here is whether they feel confident that the population
as a whole won’t opt for independence. If Quebecers do opt for independence, the
residents of Quebec West will be out of luck vis á vis their civil rights.
If the preference of the non-Francophones of Quebec West is "yes” that they do
want control over their civil rights in an independent Quebec, then their rights
will be obtained through the Two Question Referendum format. However, the
community of Quebec West will also be tied into opting for independence. There
is no way at this point "to foul up the vote", as some may claim the
non-Francophone community did in 1980 and 1995 by voting "no” en masse.
This format is the only way to successfully make the trade-off of the 20%
non-Francophone block vote for full civil rights status for the non-Francophones.
This all may be moot. Isn’t separatism on the wane? A June, 2008 poll
suggested that only 1/3rd of Quebecers surveyed felt that Quebec is “destined to
become a country.”[107]
Support for separatism in Quebec, like the phenomenon of global warming, comes
and goes in cycles. After Pierre Trudeau left office in the mid ’80s, support
for separatism — as evidenced by public opinion polls — was down to 20%. Only a
few short years later, and the “humiliation” of Meech Lake, a 58% majority
supported separatism[108] (culminating
in the near win for the “yes” side in the ‘95 referendum).
Just wait until the next perceived great humiliation (doesn’t take much) and the
poll numbers in support of separation will jump.
I contend that the one third figure cited above is an incredibly high figure
when you consider that, currently, we are pretty much at the bottom of a down
cycle. In that light, one third is incredibly high. Compare that to the 20%
support in the down cycle of the mid-eighties when separatism was also
experiencing a bottoming-out.
As discussed at length at the beginning of the How section, demographic
studies have conclusively demonstrated that support for separatism is virtually
nil on the non-Francophone side. Thus, a one third tally in support of
separation is virtually all on the francophone side, which represents
approximately 80% of Quebec’s total population. Therefore, that one third figure
is actually forty percent of the Francophones surveyed. Forty percent is not
that far off from the 60% of Francophones who voted “yes“ in 1995..
Separation is hibernating for the moment. The PQ’s decision to put the
sovereignty referendum on the back burner is tactical and wise: Sit out and wait
this downward trough.
---