We shouldn鈥檛 be surprised that Quebec Premier Pauline Marois has announced her intent to hold yet another sovereignty referendum if she wins next month鈥檚 provincial election. The Charter of Values her government produced was a transparent attempt to provoke a crisis.
Marois knows the courts will torpedo this travesty at the first opportunity. What else can they do with a document that elevates religious animosity to state policy?
But when that happens, Marois will brandish this 鈥渋nsult鈥� as proof that Quebec鈥檚 values are under attack. Independence is the only solution.
What should worry us is the lack of push-back in the rest of Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has urged the federal Liberal and New Democrat leaders to keep a low profile.
The same message has been communicated to provincial premiers: Lie low, don鈥檛 be provoked and keep your mouth shut.
In short, we鈥檙e following the approach that Jean Chr茅tien deployed in the 1995 referendum. You remember how that turned out: The separatists came within a hair鈥檚-breadth of victory.
Contrast this milquetoast strategy with Britain鈥檚 response to a similar threat. Scotland is preparing to hold a sovereignty referendum later this year.
Already, the Governor of the Bank of England has warned the Scots that they cannot retain Britain鈥檚 currency without relinquishing some freedom.
The business community is turning up the heat. Insurance giant Standard Life has threatened to leave Edinburgh if the separatists win. The Bank of Scotland is worrying out loud that a 鈥測es鈥� vote might affect credit ratings.
And the president of the European Commission has warned that an independent Scotland would find it 鈥渆xtremely difficult, if not impossible鈥� to enter the EU.
Of course, the nationalists are seizing on these threats to rally the troops. But polling results suggest that separatist support has stalled, and the no vote is growing.
It鈥檚 a Scottish tradition to disbelieve anything that emanates from Westminster. But when those sounding the alarm are respected experts at arm鈥檚 length from the political process, the message gets through.
I would have thought Quebec could be dealt with in a similar fashion. Would the province be granted automatic entry to the North American Free Trade Agreement? Dubious.
Newfoundland might renege on the Churchill Falls deal. Sure, the PQ could sue. But Newfoundland鈥檚 contract is with the province of Quebec, not an independent country that happens to have the same name.
And which court might hear such a case? None of the Quebec courts would have standing 鈥� they would then reside in a foreign country.
How would la belle province fund its portion of the national debt? Ottawa spends $30 billion annually on interest charges. Quebec鈥檚 share is around $7 billion. Where is that to be found?
The province would also lose equalization payments of $9.3 billion a year. And that鈥檚 on top of a budget deficit close to $3 billion.
Yes, the province would get to keep whatever tax payments Quebecers currently remit to Ottawa. But Quebec has a staggeringly weak revenue base.
All in all, a sovereign Quebec would make Greece look like Fort Knox.
These are not realities that federal politicians need dwell on. There are any number of credible intermediaries whom even a noted fabulist like Marois would find hard to assail.
Let鈥檚 hear from the Bank of Canada. Or perhaps the U.S. ambassador in Ottawa might have something to say. Americans can hardly welcome the breakup of a neighbour and ally.
In short, there are plenty of ways to communicate these home truths, without handing the PQ a propaganda weapon. And let鈥檚 not wait till the sovereignty campaign begins.
The time to start levelling with Quebecers is now.
