GO THEIR OWN WAY

With so much having been written and said concerning the reemergence of the sovereignty debate here in Quebec I was not sure what more needed to be said. That was up until now. You see, over the last three weeks I have been actively participating in the ''Twitterverse''. More specifically trending on Hashtags like #qc2014, #qcpoli, #qc2014medias along with a few others. My foray there has enlightenment me to the incredible amount of partisanship, passion and sometimes outright lunacy of this debate. For established Quebecois the discussion of language, culture and identity has long occupied a major portion of the landscape around here. The ongoings on Twitter and other social media has expanded this landscape to degrees I never thought possible. The most perplexing element is that the discussion surrounding sovereignty is not the result of a pending referendum but more the possibility of the party who champions this cause winning a majority Government. The belief, based on statements made by the leader of this party and various of its members is that if they are given a majority government a Referendum on separation from the rest of Canada would not be far behind. So given that, many have weighed in on the subject. So what can possibly be left to say. Well here goes!

I have never considered myself a Federalist nor a Separatist. I grew up in Quebec believing that I was simply a Canadian. I grew up here a second generation Finn (Finland). I went to school here, learned french in a program back then referred to as ''French Immersion''. I got jobs here, had numerous friends (in both languages). I raised my family here (4 children) and the love of my life is as ''pure laine'' Québécoise as they come. My children are all bilingual and interact daily in school and in part time jobs with more Francophones then Anglophones. I have always felt like part of the Quebec fabric. I have worked throughout North America and have traveled all over the world. I have always come back here because simply put; ''this is my home''. I have never felt or experienced what many radical separatist militants call being disenfranchised. I was always a minority here but no one I interacted with ever made me feel like one. I felt no distinction from either being a Quebecer or Canadian. As a rule I speak more French here then I do English by far (80%-20%). I respect the language and the people. I am not one of those Anglophones that believes I should just be able to speak English here and everyone should respect that and service me in my language. The majority here are French and to deny this or try to speak over it simply helps to define a fundamental part of the problem. It lies in the belief of some inside Quebec and some outside, that this place is like everywhere else in Canada. It is not. It is an Island of a specific language and culture surrounded by almost 343 million people who do not share it. To the true separatist, Quebec never belong here within a Confederacy of 34 million. It has remained in-trenched in their minds that the 6.2 million of them are distinct and deserve to be identified as such in a stand alone model. In essence they are correct. To understand this is to begin to understand why the issue of sovereignty means so much to a great deal of the population here.  

In 1980 I was 15 years old  and plugging my way through grade 9 of High School. It was the year of the first referendum. At the time I had little, or no comprehension, of the magnitude of the debate or for that matter the repercussions it might have. The outcome of that vote and its iconic dreamer René Lévesque remains locked in the history and folklore of Quebec. A constant reminder to those who dream of Quebec, ''The Nation''. To understand its impact today you have to consider that someone between 20-30 years old back then is now 54 or 64 years old. In the 1995 referendum those same individuals were 35-45 years old. The legacy of those two defeats have stayed frozen in the psyche of the Separatist dreamer. In 1995 I was 30 years old with a two year old daughter and a 1 year old little boy. I understood more the importance of what such a vote might mean for not only me and the place I called home but for two very young children as well. At that time I could not see any up side to voting in favor of separation. Even though no one really made a strong argument for staying either. This unto itself has lead to a great deal of distention between both Separatists and Federalists.

The question of why to stay vs. why to go. This argument has never been resolved. In many ways it was born out of M. Lévesque's speech on the evening of the defeat of the 1980 referendum when he said  to a Montreal Forum filled with Thousand of Separatist supporters (translated), ''My dear friends ''If I understand you correctly you are saying until the next time''. This sowed the seed that the dream of sovereignty was not a one time deal but a project in development. Separatist have clung to this, ''next time'' idea. It is rehashed every time the issue of sovereignty comes up. The year might now be different but the tone is always the same and seems always to boil down to that which best resembles a parent and teenager dispute. Teenager (Separatist side): ''I am going to leave home because your rules and systems are suffocating me. I need to leave to be free and achieve all the greatness I know I have. I need to find my identity, my purpose. Oh and by the way I am taking all my bedroom furniture, the car and you still need to pay me my allowance.'' The Parent ( Federalists side): ''So leave if you don't like it, no wait don't leave. Well if you leave your going to starve, you cannot make it on your own, you need us. You cannot break up the family, what will your brothers and sisters think. You can't go because we say so! No more allowance for you your cut off''. The reality now though is that both those arguments are no longer close to being valid. More importantly the context of 1980 and 95 has changed so dramatically that no longer can  it past the ''litmus test''. Sure both sides pull out the staple arguments of ''we will use the Canadian dollar'' and the other replies with ''pay your portion of the debt''. Back and forth it goes. The reality though is neither side is actually correct.

So now we find ourselves in another debate about sovereignty and what that means for both Quebec and Canada. The simple fact is when you get beyond the ''breaking up of Canada'' and the ''Mon Pays'' rhetoric; you begin to see take shape a debate that might not be that easy to win for either side. One one side you have the staunch Separatists who believe that Quebecer's cannot flourish or attain their full potential in a Federal system. To paraphrase one twitter user, ''Anglo Canada has always stood in the way of Quebecer's''. There is also a strong belief that the language and culture is justification unto itself to not belong to any other Confederacy and that only as an  independent ''Nation'' can  they ever achieve their goals. This ideology is ingrained and handed down from generations dating back to the loss at, ''The Plains of Abraham''. In French Universities the graying, nostalgic and bearded Professors speak in ideological terms to their students about the loss dream of independence. Anyone who has followed Quebec history understands that the evolution of the French (or Quebecois) culture has been defined over the last 255 years built on the idea that they have been subordinate to the Englishman. Now one can appreciate the sub culture and the actual reality of this thinking but it is in essence irrelevant. An in bread belief exists that cannot be washed away out of a desire to define the true context of history. So they have created their own revisionist version of history.

On the other side you have the staunch Federalists who believe separatist are; ''turn coats'' traitors to all that Canada stands for. To Paraphrase one twitter user, '' My father defended Canada in World War Two for what? So a bunch of Frenchies can destroy this country''. This goes along with a strong ingrained passion amongst Federalists of the greatest that Canada represents. In their mind there is no greater country then Canada and why in the Hell would anyone want to leave it. Historically Anglo Canadians have downplayed the minimization of French Quebecers, their language and their culture. Separatists are seen primarily as violent radicals ( mainly due to the FLQ and to radical Nationalists). The idea that they are intolerant has been fueled by bills 101 and most recently the Parti Quebecois (PQ) ''Charter of Values'' which seeks to curb the exposition or demonstration of any religious affiliation by those holding job in the public or para public service. Mixed into these two groups are staunch French Federalists who have always had an allegiance to Canada. While many still value their Quebec identity they believe that French Quebecer's can do just fine within the Confederacy. This group is often chastised by the staunch Separatists who see them as affronts to the ''cause'' and are often misunderstood by the staunch Federalists who do not understand their desire to conserve a strong Québécois culture within the Confederacy of Canada. This helps to highlight how cloudy the whole issue is and how difficult it would ever be to reach any common ground. The debate can not even get going simply due to the lack of any common understanding between the parties. One is either to far left or to far right for the other and those in the center are seen as a confused hybrid.

So where does that leave us? Between the years 1995 and 2012 the whole separation debate slipped into hibernation. A Liberal Government from 2003 to 2012 tended to simply ignore the matter and focused on more social and pressing issues. Not until late 2012 when the Parti Quebecois came back to power ( minority) has the discussion begun anew. It was notched up and fueled up by the calling of a general election in which numerous Parti Quebecois members voiced their support for a referendum and a call for sovereignty again. Only then did it get strong local interest as well as interest in the rest of Canada. Except this time the attention is different then it was in 1980 and 95. There is an undercurrent which did not exist back then, an overtone of murmuring a ''let them go if they want to go'' philosophy. Within Quebec the response to the idea has met with anything but enthusiasm, unless of course you belong to the 33% staunch supporters of the idea. Even then, numerous previous supporters of the question are not interested, as they believe Quebec has bigger fish to fry. A general, ''we need to clean up our house first'' before entertaining the idea again'' mentality prevails in a younger demographic more concerned about education, healthcare, jobs and debt. This ideology of a better Quebec more prosperous for everyone predominates over the idea of a Nation. This new more society based thinking is lost on the old age separatists still longing for the, ''chance'' to finally get their Nation. Supported by a small percentage of a younger generation fed the separatist food by their Teachers, Parents and Grandparents the staunch Separatist continue to try and rally the troops. The Federalist from their side tend to over react and call the Parti Quebecois leader ''Hitler'' or ''Stalin'' without realizing that it does nothing but inflame the passion of all Quebecer's as they see this rhetoric coming from the rest of Canada as misplaced and interfering. Another portion promotes the, '' let them leave then'' position out of fatigue from discussing the issue a third time around.. In this entire debate this final thinking might actually be the best to learn from.

It has occurred to me in the last few weeks that the bed has already been made on the subject of Separation. There is absolutely no use to try and make it again. It is an old argument, it is stale on both sides. The simple fact is that if Quebecer's truly want to separate then that is entirely their choice. Not anyone else. The simple fact that they have on two occasions chosen not to leave says more unto itself then any Federalist Politician ever could in the current debate. No Separatist can make any greater impassioned plea then has not already been made. No Franco Federalist Quebecer can be any better understood in this debate then in the last two. In the final analyses what everyone needs to understand is this: Canada speaks for itself. It is what it is, recognized.world wide for being one of the greatest countries. It has more to offer in its collective then it has in its parts. It needs no introduction nor defending in its current model. Those who dream of a separate Quebec, of a ''Pays'' will not be dissuaded from the dream. There is nothing anyone can offer them to make them want to stay. The idea for it needs no greater justification to them other then to look around them and see themselves floating in a sea of English. It is nothing more than this and nothing less. For those who cherish and hold sentimental the idea of a Canada from coast to coast. We must accept that at some point in time this may no longer be possible. That the inevitable desire a portion of the Quebec population has to stand alone, may lead to a democratic decision to leave. What that will look like and the form it will take will take centuries to define. Most of those who championed for an independent Quebec will actually never get to see the final model of their Nation. They will only know that they in some way contributed to its birth. For older Canadians they neither will see the final outcome of what a new Canada looks like without Quebec. They will simply know that they believe it was a mistake for Quebec to leave.

What will be left at the end of the day weather that is in 4 years from now or 40 is that the Country we know and love today will be probably much different for our children then it was for us. This will be as equally true for the Separatist who always saw Quebec the same way as the Federalists saw Canada. Their Nation, their home. An un-daunting desire to go their own way.