It has become very likely that within a few years the people of Quebec will again be consulted on their political future and asked whether they are for or against Quebec sovereignty. If the answer is yes, and the federalist side is defeated, the rest of Canada will have to decide whether to abide by this decision or prevent it by forceful means.

It is therefore not some hypothetical question for leisurely discussion, but an urgent question which everybody will have to answer in the near future. Nor is it a side issue or a diversion from "real" problems. It is a life-or-death question for the Canadian State, likely to dominate the political agenda for some time. The stakes are high for the labour, feminist and Native movements as well. The outcome of this battle will affect the prospects of all other struggles for a long time to come.

Revolutionary socialists have always defended Quebec's right to self-determination up to and including independence; we have always defended its right to secede from Canada if it wishes to do so. This stand is more relevant than ever. However, it has become insufficient not only for Quebec socialists, but also, we are convinced, for those in English Canada. What is needed now is a militant stand for the victory of the independence struggle.

Independence: who's for, who's against

There seems to he near-unanimous agreement in English Canadian opinion that Quebec independence is a "bourgeois conceit", as Mr Richler wrote. Consequently, according to this argument, independence should be rejected. Jean Chretien also sang the same tune about the "2000 bourgeois" who would benefit from independence.

About the only people to reject this view are the Quebec bourgeois themselves. The main employers' association, the Conseil du patronat du Quebec, is the staunchest supporter of Canadian unity. They polled their members and found 65% opposed to sovereignty, almost the opposite of the general public. This proportion is even higher among big business; Bertin Nadeau of the giant foodstore chain Provigo puts the federalist proportion at 98%. If occasional public statements by some Quebec businessmen in favour of sovereignty make the headlines, it is precisely because such a stand is so rare. It's exciting news: "Extra! Extra! There is one important bourgeois in favour of sovereignty!"

On the other hand, statements by trade-unionists in favour of independence hardly make the news. It's almost taken for granted. All three major union federations voted for independence by a crushing majority in their most recent convention, after they polled their membership and found 85%-90% support for it. In the CSN, the vote went about 1500 in favour and 2 against. The main women's organization, the Federation des femmes du Quebec, also took a position in favour of sovereignty. This position is also very prevalent among the youth. So, reality is almost the opposite of the fashionable view that sovereignty comes from the Quebec bourgeoisie. In fact, they are the main social force not in favour of it, alongside the Anglophone community, of course.

Needless to say, the Canadian bourgeoisie in its entirety is adamantly opposed to Quebec independence, and for very good reasons. It would reduce their status in the world. They would also lose control over an important part of their internal market, something which is very important for major federally regulated Canadian corporations, like the big banks and insurance companies, or Bell Telephone, the largest Canadian company. Furthermore, Quebec independence would weaken the Federal State very much and potentially open the door to demands from other groups such as Native peoples. The main instrument of class domination would be very much reduced.

Although the Quebec Francophone bourgeoisie could theoretically benefit from the creation of an independent capitalist Quebec bent on supporting them with all the resources of the State, getting there is the problem. The PQ leadership does have every intention of doing so, but this would require that Quebec first pass through a period of economic and political destabilization before a new political order is re-established, with the necessary State institutions to maintain it. For instance, the Quebec government has no serious repressive forces now - only the Surete du Quebec (SQ) - and it would have to build those.

In the meantime, all the social movements can be expected to press their demands and raise their own ideas about what the new Quebec should look like. There could be a power vacuum in between the withdrawal of Federal power and the assumption of real power by the new Quebec State, during which a weakened State power would face increased expectations. Most Quebec bourgeois don't have the "courage" to go through all that for the sake of theoretically possible gains. They have too much to lose if the process goes awry, as it might well do, Parizeau notwithstanding. And their present fate is not so terrible after all. They prefer to stick with the Federal State as the ultimate guarantor of bourgeois order in Quebec.

By and large, however, the Quebec bourgeoisie is not very much in favour of sovereignty for the same reasons that most social movements are in favour of it. First, they would get rid of the Federal government, widely seen here as the main and most powerful obstacle to social and national progress. While much of English Canadian progressive opinion identifies Ottawa as the source of social reforms, this view has little currency in Quebec, where Ottawa has been more an enemy than a source of support. With the Feds out of the picture, social movements could concentrate on Quebec City, which is seen as more amenable to pressure than Ottawa, at least from a Quebec point of view.

Furthermore, Quebec independence would provide an opportunity to reconsider all social and political relations. The labour movement hopes that this will provide the opportunity to dump the present economic orientation and move towards full-employment policies. The peace movements hope to make Quebec a country with no army. Women's organization are in the process of drawing up a "feminist project of society" for the new sovereign Quebec. Even the Green Party supports independence as a way to bring power closer to communities and facilitate their fight for an ecological agenda.

The PQ and how to fight it

Of course, the PQ leadership is not up to the hopes of independence supporters as outlined above. To begin with, it is unlikely to achieve complete independence anyway, for it would hardly resort to the kind of popular mobilization needed to implement a unilateral declaration of independence. The kind of orderly, negotiated transfer of powers from Ottawa to Quebec City contemplated by the PQ leadership could hardly lead beyond "sovereignty-association" in the best case. And that would entail a devolution of powers leaving Quebec under the ultimate authority of some key federal institutions.

As for its social program, the PQ is a bourgeois party committed to capitalism this goes without saying - and to conservative management, as demonstrated during their tenure of power. It is not Quebec's version of the Reform Party, however. Just to recall a few things, the PQ stopped prosecutions against doctors performing abortions - the first to do so in Canada; the PQ included sexual orientation in the Quebec Charter of Rights in the non-discrimination clause, something Canada has not done yet; it elected the first and only Black MP in the history of Quebec, as well as the first openly gay MIP; the PQ passed anti-scab legislation which might be emulated by the Ontario NDP government, 15 years later; and it officially recognized the 12 aboriginal nations in Quebec as different nations with a right to self-government, while Canada can't bring itself to recognize Quebec, not as a nation, but as a "distinct society", whatever that means. All this was done, of course, in order to co-opt movements, and they also resorted to repressive measures and draconian cutbacks on many occasions. Yet, this is neither Thatcher nor the Nazi Party, a comparison once made by Mordecai Richler.

Anyway, the problem lies elsewhere. As socialists, we urge people to not vote for the PQ, and we call for the creation of an independent labour party in Quebec. The fact is that the PQ is the main political force in the national movement right now, and likely to form the first government of a sovereign Quebec, if the present round succeeds. Should we therefore say that since the PQ is a bourgeois party, socialists should oppose Quebec sovereignty? But the Quebec Liberal Party is also a bourgeois party, just more right-wing than the PQ, if any difference can be seen between the two. So are the Conservatives and the federal Liberals. The NDP is a labour-based party, but its record in office is not so great either. The PQ itself made bolder reforms during its first two years than the Ontario NDP in the same period of time. What is so progressive about federalist parties, that sovereignty should be rejected?

The logic at play here seems to be that as long as Quebec socialists have not displaced the PQ from the leading position in the national movement, Quebec sovereignty can't be supported, while no such prerequisite is asked the other way around; English Canadian socialists are not required to first displace the Liberals and Tories before Canadian unity can be supported. This dubious one-sided logic only betrays a preconceived and dogmatic stand.

If sovereignty has to be rejected on the ground that the PQ is a bourgeois party, the same reasoning would lead to a rejection of Canadian unity as well, since the present federal government is bourgeois, and the next one is likely to be so, too (i.e., the Liberals). Sure, English Canadian progressives will say that they try to elect the NDP. We too try to create a Quebec labour party and get it elected. By rejecting independence, though, Quebec socialists would be siding with the Conseil du patronat, the Canadian imperialist bourgeoisie and its parties in Ottawa against the bulk of the Quebec labour and women's movements, and against Quebecois youth. How would this help the fight to create a working-class alternative to the PQ? On the contrary, this would only isolate those socialist forces which took such a stand. And it would help the Canadian imperialist bourgeoisie in its fight to keep Quebec within Canada.

How to really build working-class unity

The federalist Left often opposes Quebec independence on the grounds that it would "divide the working class". This only begs the question: is the working class united now? The fact that we all live under the authority of the federal State doesn't mean that we are united. On the contrary, when the unity of the State is based on national oppression, it only generates division between the working classes of the different nations. Far from being a condition for the unity of the working class -- much less a guarantee for it, as the federalist Left seems to assume -- Canadian unity has only been a source of division. The only unity worth having from the point of view of the working class is unity in the struggle against this State, not unity in submission to it.

Some might say that it need not have been that way. If the Quebec working `class had seen concrete, active support of its national demands coming out of the English Canadian labour movement and its political representative, the NDP, the appeal of independence as an option might have been much weaker. But the opposite was true. The federal NDP has consistently been on the wrong side in national disputes, culminating with their participation in the pro-Canada committee in the 1980 referendum, alongside the Canadian banks. It was only in 1987 that the federal NDP finally recognized Quebec's right to self-determination. If this had been done in 1961 when the NDP was created, history might have been different. Instead, the NDP rejected it and alienated most of its potential supporters within the Quebec labour movement.

It is never too late to correct mistakes, but history keeps unfolding in the meantime. It has become abundantly clear that the fight against national oppression in Quebec has taken the form of a struggle for independence, and the Quebec labour movement has taken a clear, overwhelming stand in favour of it. You can't turn the clock back to 1961. The only way to build working class unity between Quebec and Canada is for the English-Canadian labour movement to acknowledge the political choice made by its Quebec counterpart and lend its support in the fight against the Canadian State.

There is no inherent value in the unity of Canada as a bourgeois, imperialist State - especially when this State has to be defended against the wishes of a clear majority of the working class of the main oppressed nation. There could be more unity after Quebec becomes independent than is now on the basis of imposed unity. Lenin, for instance, pointed to the fact that relations between the Swedish and Norwegian working classes improved after the independence of Norway from Sweden, after a general strike of the Swedish labour movement against the attempted used of force by its government.

Why self-determination is not enough

Some would say that they are prepared to defend Quebec's right to separate from Canada if it wishes to, but that they will argue against it and try to convince the Quebec population that it would be better to stay within Canada. Some refer to Lenin to argue that while socialists support self-determination as a matter of principle, they also advise the working class of oppressed nations to reject independence and seek unity, unless there is a really terrible situation which precludes this option. While this position is logically tenable - you can be for the right to divorce without urging all women to divorce - it doesn't follow that you should advocate the continuation of a forced, abusive marriage and urge battered women to put up with it.

In a perverse way, the best proof that self-determination alone has become insufficient is perhaps the fact that the NDP officially recognizes it, and major sections of the trade-union leadership as well, for instance around Bob White. Even the Conservative Party does, by the way. Some even say that it is no longer necessary to fight for Quebec's right to self-determination, since everybody agrees. Really? At the same time, there is a consensus among all those forces on the need to preserve Canadian Unity and defeat the pro-independence movement in Quebec.

Various political means are mobilized to that effect Economic intimidation plays a major role, with the threat to make Quebec's life miserable after independence by refusing to maintain present commercial links, putting in peril hundreds of thousands of jobs on both sides of the Ottawa river. This is the kind of threat that the English Canadian labour movement should vigorously denounce in the interests of its own constituents. Federalist politicians should not be allowed to play with jobs like that. Yet they remain very quiet about it.

Better still is the "threat" not to let Quebec use the Canadian dollar as a currency after sovereignty, even though it would still have no say on the policies of the Bank of Canada - but who does anyway? Yet this would be a bargain for Canadian big business, thanks to the PQ's unwillingness to upset "financial markets", at the cost of renouncing monetary independence and accepting the Bank of Canada's anti-employment policies. Quebec would be better off with its own currency.

A number of businessmen have also made threats to move production outside of Quebec in the event of sovereignty. According to Mr. Bronfman, Canadian Club whisky could not be produced in Montreal if the city was no longer part of Canada! Next thing, we will be told that the Montreal Canadiens will have to move to Kingston. Some supposedly serious economic experts armed with doctorates have even claimed that a sovereign Quebec would suffer a shortage of peanut butter and toilet paper.

However, economic intimidation is less efficient this time than in 1980. Ironically, federalist forces are now victims of their own continued celebration of Quebec enterprises during the 80s, done in the belief that it would steer Quebeckers away from independence by demonstrating the possibility of success within Canada. On the contrary, this has increased the self-confidence of a Quebec population faced with economic intimidation, on the basis of a somewhat exaggerated idea of the strength of Quebec business and great illusions about the kind of support to expect from them.

The sharing of the federal debt provides another area of intimidation. We are told that not only should Quebec assume a large part of this debt, larger than its share of Canada's Gross Domestic Product or its current contribution to the federal budget, but that it should also pay Ottawa back for federal assets located in Quebec, therefore paying twice for those. It is like paying the mortgage and repurchasing the house as well. And if Quebec refuses to accept such a crashing, disproportionate burden, we are already being threatened with a financial boycott.

Finally, there is the threat to use military force, as urged by Ms. Diane Francis, Chief Editorialist of the Financial Post, who also calls for bringing charges of high treason against Parizeau. A Law professor of McGill University, Stephen Scott, even offered a piece of military advice about the best way to subjugate Quebec: just bomb the electric grid and Quebec will surrender within days. These views were published in the mainstream press, and The Montreal Gazette wrote that Canada would indeed be entitled to use force against a Quebec declaration of independence. Just a "plain truth", they said in their editorial!

All this is meant to dissuade the Quebec population from opting for independence by inflating its potential cost, threatening various forms of retaliation and raising the spectre of military intervention, while still maintaining that - if by any chance Quebec opinion stands fast and people remain in favour of sovereignty in spite of everything - they will allow it. This only betrays the hope that intimidation and threats will make the Quebec people renounce their aspirations, so that Canada will be spared an agonizing decision about the use of force. And this is self-determination? There has never been any problem with the right to submit. The problem is with the right to stand up.

And what about Native rights?

Of course, Ottawa would not say point-blank that it refuses to accept the results of a referendum in favour of Quebec sovereignty. They will rather invoke their duty to defend minority groups allegedly threatened by Quebec secessionist authorities. The Quebec Anglophone community doesn't provide a very convincing potential victim, especially when compared with Francophone minorities in Canada. They score much better on every ground. The alleged defense of Native rights is much more convenient. It can even mislead otherwise progressive elements in English Canada into supporting the use of force against Quebec. Unfortunately, some Native leaders have entered this game by calling for a federal military intervention in case Quebec declares sovereignty, even though the same army was used against them in Kahnawake and Kahnesatake. Needless to say, such declarations are not very helpful for those of us who try to mobilize support for Native rights in Quebec.

Attempts to oppose Quebec sovereignty and Native rights are now commonplace, but this opposition is misconceived. Sure, mainstream Quebec nationalism doesn't recognize the right of Native people to self-determination, up to and including independence. But does Ottawa recognize it, or the Ontario NDP government? No. All they recognize is the right to native self-government within Canada, something the PQ officially recognizes as well for Aboriginal groups...within Quebec. Apparently, the only case where the right to secede would apply is in case Native people want to separate from Quebec in order to remain within Canada! In this respect, all-White governments and opposition parties in Canada (including Quebec) have the same basic stand, and it is very hypocritical for English-Canadian "progressives" to single out Quebec in this respect, and even more hypocritical to use this as a pretext for refusing Quebec rights themselves. In fact, Quebec sovereignty as seen by the Parti Quebecois is no more opposed to native self-determination than is Canadian unity as seen by the Liberals, the Conservatives or the NDP.

Native people in Quebec often seem to perceive Quebec sovereignty as an attempt to grab their land, especially with respect to the North, which was transferred to Quebec in 1912. This is indeed a serious concern, and Native land claims must be defended again any such takeover attempt. However, Quebec sovereignty as such would not change the present relationship between Native peoples and White governments, but rather which White government they would have to deal with. While Native peoples have every reason to be vigilant, Quebec sovereignty would not erase their inherent rights.

Whatever claims they currently press against the Federal government would have the same moral, historical and political value against the government of a sovereign Quebec. As for the legal value of existing Treaty rights, the PQ has always projected sovereignty as a succession to the Canadian government, whereby Quebec would assume all existing federal rights and obligations towards Quebec residents or concerning Quebec territory, including treaty rights. This point was repeated again recently.

For sure, Native peoples have no special reason to trust the Quebec government, either Liberal or PQ. It has been no better than other provincial governments or the federal one in its treatment of Native peoples. Whether it has been worse than elsewhere is open to question, though. At any rate, this is a rather self-serving claim coming from English Canadians, though frequently heard. Much is made of the recent recognition of Indian nations' right to self-government by the NDP government of Ontario, which is contrasted with the special hostility allegedly displayed toward Native peoples in Quebec. However, when the 600,000 strong French-speaking minority in Ontario asked for the same status, this was refused.

As a matter of fact, the former PQ government had adopted in 1985 a formal recognition of Native peoples in Quebec as different nations with a right to self-government and territorial autonomy, while Canada can't bring itself to recognize Quebec as a distinct society, let alone a nation. The PQ was spared the test of practice, for it lost the following election six months later and has remained in opposition ever since. Considerable scepticism is in order, in light of the PQ record in government including the occasional use of police forces to settle disputes with Native communities. Yet, Mohawk leader Joe Norton was heard saying that relationships with the Quebec government had actually improved during the PQ tenure.

The Great Whale hydro-electric project is another example of how Native rights are forcibly marshalled into the French-English debate. However, the builder of the James Bay dams and chief advocate of the Great Whale project, current premier Bourassa, happens to be a most resolute opponent of Quebec independence. On the other hand, the PQ actually opposed James Bay dams in the 70s (in favour of nuclear power!) and are no great enthusiasts of Bourassa's pet mega-projects, although they speak on both sides of the issue. The first federal environmental review of the Great Whale project was actually commissioned by current BQ leader Lucien Bouchard, who was then environment minister in Ottawa!

Contrary to persistent efforts at misrepresentation, there is nothing especially sovereignist about those dams. Their construction doesn't require Quebec independence at all, falling within present provincial jurisdiction. Far from financing Quebec independence, those megaprojects would heavily mortgage the new nation. While Great Whale is pushed by a federalist government some pro-independence forces are opposed to it, such as the Teachers' Federation, the CEQ. And Cree opposition to similar projects in Ontario and Manitoba receive much less attention from worthy defenders of Native and environmental causes, a fact easily explained from a Quebec viewpoint. The forcible police removal of Native railroad blockades in Western provinces also received much less media attention than the Oka crisis, being of no use to whip up English-Canadian public opinion against Quebec.

Let Quebec choose

True, the PQ and BQ are not progressive. Neither are the mainstream federalist parties, Liberals or Conservatives. Neither is the US government, which has clearly stated its preference for Canadian unity. But everything is relative. By US standards, the PQ would be regarded as liberal, and its leader Parizeau would sound like a French-speaking Dukakis. The PQ government was the first in Canada to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, in 1978. Ontario followed in 1986, and Canada has yet to follow, as well as the United States. The PQ government also passed an anti-scab law in 1977, which the current NDP government in Ontario hesitates to emulate. The PQ also elected the first and only Black MP in Quebec history, in 1976, as well as the first openly gay MP in Canada, in 1985. The BQ is often likened to the Reform Party in Western Canada, but the latter equivalent in US politics would rather be found amongst Buchanan supporters in the Republican Party. As for Duke supporters, their Canadian counterpart would be found amongst those bigoted, openly anti-French forces which played such an instrumental role in killing Meech.

Nothing of this justifies, or excuses, mainstream Quebec nationalist forces for ignoring Native rights and violating them in areas such as hydroelectric development. But English Canada is no more justified to oppose Quebec national demands for not observing Native rights which it doesn't observe either. This is indeed hypocrisy in the extreme. Finally, it is up to the Quebec people to choose who represents them, and nobody is entitled to refuse their democratic decision about sovereignty because they don't approve of their current government. It is the task of the Quebec labour movement, feminist and youth movements to build a progressive working-class socialist alternative to the PQ. We need no help from the Canadian army to do so. Gauche Socialiste will continue to oppose the PQ and the BQ and call for the creation of a pro-independence labour party which would seek an alliance on equal terms with the First Nations. But keep your army home, please.

By François Moreau