home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
CNN Newsroom: Global View
/
CNN Newsroom: Global View.iso
/
txt
/
fbis
/
fbis0991.004
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-05-02
|
11KB
|
231 lines
<text>
<title>
Issue Of Sovereign Quebec Borders Detailed
</title>
<article>
<hdr>
Foreign Broadcast Information Service, September 16, 1992
Canada: Issue of Sovereign Quebec Borders Detailed
</hdr>
<body>
<p>[Article by Yves Boisvert: "What Will Be the Geography of a
Possible Sovereign Quebec?" Montreal LA PRESSE in French 24 Aug
91 p B4]
</p>
<p> [Text] Among the hundred thousand ways to start a civil war,
the surest is still a dispute over territory. Thus far, the
Canadian constitutional debate has been relatively serene. But
if these are people who are looking for an opportunity to steer
things awry, the border debate will provide them with a golden
one.
</p>
<p> Before the burial of the Lake Meech Agreement, and above all
before last year's Mohawk crisis, the subject of the borders of
an independent Quebec was not much in fashion in Canadian
political and juridical science circles.
</p>
<p> Things have definitely changed. Peter Russell, political
scientist at the University of Toronto, would have preferred to
sidestep this debate "because it leads to violence. This can be
seen in Yugoslavia..."
</p>
<p> But Professor Russell will simply have to resign himself to
that: The border issue has already been raised. And not solely
by scatterbrains. Some examples?
</p>
<p> The book that is currently creating a stir in
English-speaking Canada is titled Deconfederation. It is the
work of David Bercuson and Barry Cooper, two former citizens of
Montreal, historian and political scientist respectively, who
teach at Calgary University.
</p>
<p> Either out of cynicism or of provocativeness, Cooper and
Bercuson have dedicated their work to the memory of Rene
Levesque and claim to have drawn their inspiration from the
founder of the Parti Quebecois [PQ] in an impassioned advocacy
of independence for Quebec. For them, the moment of the divorce
has arrived.
</p>
<p> There is a slight nuance, however: It is not Quebec that
Cooper and Bercuson want to boot out of Canada...but New
France! In a few lines, the authors assert that there are
"excellent historical, juridical, and political arguments" to
demolish the thesis of Quebec's territorial integrity.
</p>
<p> All the Great North should remain in Canada, they say, since
it was ceded to Quebec by federal law in 1898 and 1912 solely
because Quebec was a Canadian province. For that matter, they
say, Quebec hardly occupied this territory at all until around
1960. And the Hydro-Quebec dams? They would be taken over by
the federal government, of course, which would sell the
electricity to the Quebecois, if there were any left after
having offered it to the Americans and Ontarians.
</p>
<p> Cooper and Bercuson would also lop off from Quebec territory
the south bank of the St. Lawrence (Loyalist land and a
necessary corridor between the maritime provinces and the
western part of the country), the lower North Coast
(Newfoundlanders took part in its colonization), and, for
obvious reasons, the Outaouais valley.
</p>
<p> Lawyer David Varty, president of the Canadian Bar
Association's Constitutional Law Section in British Columbia,
is more generous. In the less subliminally titled book Who Gets
Ungava? just published, he grants an independent Quebec the
entire Quebec of 1867. That is, Quebec Province less the Great
North, or less two thirds of its present territory.
</p>
<p> Mr. Varty also has one eye trained on the Hydro-Quebec dams,
but he makes no effort to hide his true intent: In view of the
existence of such arguments, possibly the Quebecois will cease
demanding independence, and the other Canadians will fear it
less. This "puts Quebec's departure in perspective," he says.
</p>
<p>Canada Indivisible?
</p>
<p> Stephen Scott, who teaches constitutional law at McGill
University, is not inclined to repudiate all of Varty's,
Cooper's, and Bercuson's arguments. The partisans of Quebecois
secession maintain that Canada is divisible? They are wrong,
but if they were right, he says, the same thing could be said
of Quebec.
</p>
<p> Professor Scott argues that were Quebec to decide to leave
the federation, not only would it have the right to nothing
beyond the St. Lawrence valley, but furthermore, a declaration
of independence by the National Assembly, even after a strong
referendum majority vote, would amount to a unilateral and
totally invalid amendment to the Canadian Constitution.
</p>
<p> "The juridical rules are clear!" he says. "The Constitution
does not provide for the right of secession. I cannot call
together a group of people at the Carre Philip and take a vote
on sovereignty! Nor can Quebec!" To be valid, secession must
satisfy one of the rules set forth in connection with the
amendment to the 1982 Constitution: Either the rule of seven
provinces totaling more than 50 percent of the population, or
the rule of unanimity (he leans toward the latter option).
</p>
<p> Mr. Scott thinks that a resort to armed force by Canada
would be justified if Quebec failed to conform to these rules.
In his view, the authors of a unilateral declaration of
independence should be brought to trial for treason. "When I
speak of the Army, let us understand each other. Shutting off
electric power to Montreal for four days might well be enough,"
he says.
</p>
<p> It is difficult to judge the strength of this line of
thought in Canada. According to Philip Resnick, political
scientist at the University of British Columbia, these ideas
probably reflect the opinion of "profoundly English Canada,"
which is very little inclined to be conciliatory toward Quebec,
he says. Among intellectuals, however, they represent a
minority.
</p>
<p>Law? Which Law?
</p>
<p> This said, are there any clear-cut rules of law on the basis
of which an independent Quebec's borders could be either
contested or confirmed?
</p>
<p> First of all, let us settle one thing. As long as Quebec is
part of the Canadian Federation, the rules are clear. Since
1871, under a British constitutional law, expanding, shrinking,
or altering a province's territory requires the agreement of
the province itself, the federal parliament, and all other
provinces that would be affected by the proposed modification.
</p>
<p> It is this 1871 law that enabled the expansion of Quebec in
1898 and 1912, through federal and provincial laws. The Hudson
Bay Company had ceded its rights over the vast Northern
Territory back to the British Crown. The Crown, in turn, made
a gift of it to Canada.
</p>
<p> But what happens if Quebec becomes sovereign?
</p>
<p> According to Henri Brun, constitutionalist at Laval
University, Quebec's ownership of the Northern Territories will
be even more incontestable than now. Why? Under international
law, upon becoming sovereign, Quebec acquires jurisdiction
over all matters that concern it, territory included. "It will
not even have to come to terms with the rest of Canada!"
</p>
<p> Thus, depending on whether the question is put at the level
of Canadian constitutional law or of international law, very
different conclusions are reached...
</p>
<p> "Mr. Scott is right when he says that, according to
constitutional law, independence, to be legally obtained,
requires the agreement of English Canada. Lacking such
agreement, the law, strictly speaking, is sidestepped, and one
can argue that a revolutionary act has been committed."
</p>
<p> But this, says Henri Brun, simply demonstrates "the
limitations of the law." "There are times," he says, "when the
law must be recast. The creation of a new state can fail to be
juridical, yet be legitimate. For guidance at that point, we
must fall back on democratic values."
</p>
<p> Professor Jose Woehrling of Montreal University, in his
report to the Belanger-Campeau Commission, sets forth two
possible approaches to secession by Quebec. Quebec either
secedes in accordance with Canadian constitutional law
(therefore with the agreement of English Canada), and in this
case Quebec's borders cannot be modified without Q