Negotiating with a Sovereign Québec

Terry A. Crowley is an associate professor of history at the University
of Guelph.

The future is unpredictable, but the present affords an opportunity to
think about the issues likely to be faced. In Canada’s national life,
the signposts since the Quebec referendum of 1980 have been clear
enough. Quebec’s independence is a possibility—to some, a
probability. Whatever one’s judgment, this volume is informative in
its contemplation of the future of Canada.

Sixteen scholars from a variety of disciplines discuss the
ramifications of Quebec’s independence. While the subject is so vast
as to make most shudder before its multitudinous implications
(especially in the economic sphere), the editors have wisely chosen to
divide the contributions into six sections: getting to the negotiating
table; thoughts on reassociation; Native rights; the new economic order;
restructuring the rest of Canada; and dealing with the rights of
linguistic minorities, ecological concerns, and defence questions.

While each section contains thoughtful essays that directly confront
the chief conundrums for which solutions will be sought, it is
unfortunate that most authors continue to espouse the view that
something called English Canada exists as an identifiable entity. While
this unexamined notion perpetuates the paradigm on which the Quebec
independentist view is formulated, it certainly remains open to
question. Although the last essay, by political scientist Barbara
Cameron, opens the possibility that the reasons that originally prompted
the formation of a federal state in 1867 have evaporated (through, for
example, the erosion of time, the development of new
self-identifications, and the exodus of Quebec), this contention might
have been taken more seriously by all the contributors. The plans of
military thinkers in response to the eventuality of Quebec’s
withdrawal from Canada might also have been included.

While a reformulation of the English Canada/Quebec dichotomy would have
changed the emphasis in this volume greatly, it is still welcomed as a
considered response to what was once defined as the “national
question” in Canada.