![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rfmcdonaldThe National Post's Tasha Kheiredden suggests that the G20 conference in Toronto may have an upside by reminding potentially sovereigntist-minded Québécois that Québec benefits from remaining within Canada by--among other things--belonging to a nation-state of no small heft and a higher profile than an independent Québec would likely have.
The question of whether or not Québec's likely to secede even if its electorate did vote a PQ majority government is something else entirely. Leaving aside the relatively slim likelihood of an outright vote for independence, inasmuch as the various (now strictly Clarity Act-supervised and -limited) sovereignty-association proposals would arguably only reorder the structure of the Canadian federation, what with hopes for a shared currency and customs union and common political institutions, I suspect that Québec's electorate isn't much bothered by the issue of living in a country belonging to the G20 either way.
Never mind the G8, but it’s hard to see how an independent Quebec would become a member of the G20. Both in terms of population and total GDP, it would rank below any current member nation. The country with the smallest population in the club is Australia, at 22 million people. The country with the lowest GDP is South Africa, projected by the IMF to be $USD 329 billion in 2010. Meanwhile, Quebec has a population of just under 8 million and a projected GDP of $USD 293 billion, at current exchange rates.
And those numbers would probably both drop, in the short term at least, due to the economic and demographic repercussions of political uncertainty following an independence vote. An outmigration similar to that experienced in the late 1970’s, when 100,000 Anglophones left the province between 1976 and 1980, would seriously damage the economy. While more English-speakers may stay this time around, diminished job prospects would affect all Quebecers, including Francophones, making a one-way trip down the 401 that much more attractive. How would the Quebec government convince them not to go? Hmm – maybe that Berlin Wall analogy isn’t so far off after all, only in reverse.
Knowing this, and with the world literally on Canada’s doorstep, why beat the separatist drum now? Simple – the PQ senses weakness in the Liberal camp. Premier Jean Charest’s polling numbers have plummeted in the wake of accusations of spending irregularities, allegations of judge-buying, and a budget chock-full of user fees. The latest poll puts the PQ in first place, with 41 per cent of the overall vote and 49 per cent of the Francophone vote. That’s enough to form a majority government, due to the concentration of federalist voters in Montreal ridings; even on the island, the PQ outpolls the Liberals 40 to 36 per cent.
None of this is good news for the embattled Premier, or for Quebecers and Canadians who wish they could enjoy their summer in peace, without a referendum storm cloud blackening the horizon. It’s also the last thing Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to hear as he welcomes the G20 to Toronto. But maybe the Summit will work in federalists’ favour; fake lakes aside, Canada has a chance to shine on the world stage, and show Quebecers – and all Canadians – the benefits of remaining part of our federation. Membership has its privileges, and they shouldn’t be taken for granted.
The question of whether or not Québec's likely to secede even if its electorate did vote a PQ majority government is something else entirely. Leaving aside the relatively slim likelihood of an outright vote for independence, inasmuch as the various (now strictly Clarity Act-supervised and -limited) sovereignty-association proposals would arguably only reorder the structure of the Canadian federation, what with hopes for a shared currency and customs union and common political institutions, I suspect that Québec's electorate isn't much bothered by the issue of living in a country belonging to the G20 either way.
