New Democrat Leader Jack Layton promises to promote more decorum in Parliament as the new session gets underway. Good for him. But while he’s at it, how about promoting a coherent federalist agenda as well?

For weeks, Layton has been pandering to Quebec nationalists, no doubt because much of his caucus now hails from la belle province.

He talks cheerfully about “creating winning conditions” for Quebec in Canada, co-opting a well-worn separatist slogan that refers to whipping up support for secession. This is not music to federalist ears. He also favours giving Quebec more seats in the Commons than its population warrants. And he supports a greater presence for French in Quebec’s federally regulated workplaces.

None of this will win friends outside Quebec nationalist circles. That’s something the NDP may want to consider if it hopes to govern one day. But it doesn’t end there.

More troubling by far is Layton’s support for the dubious proposition that Quebecers can break up the country by voting “50 per cent plus one” to go. He was at it again on CBC Radio this past week, calling it a “long-standing principle in democratic institutions.”

Whatever the principles of democracy, busting up countries isn’t that easy. Southern Sudan recently voted by a 98.83 per cent margin to secede, not by half plus one. Why is Layton endorsing an idea that has wide currency in Quebec but nowhere else?

Tricky as it might be for Layton to ditch this particular policy, which was enshrined on his watch in the party’s “Sherbrooke Declaration” of 2005, he should find a way to do it because it puts him at odds with the Supreme Court of Canada and the law. That can’t be a good place for an aspiring prime minister to be. The Conservative attack ads won’t be pretty.

Moreover, if Layton ever does become PM, would he be prepared to throw away the country so cheaply? The NDP is no longer the fourth party. It has to be taken seriously.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1998 — unanimously — that Quebec cannot lawfully secede unilaterally, and that a “clear majority on a clear question” is needed to trigger talks on secession, which might or might not go anywhere. A wafer-thin result wouldn’t pass muster.

Then Parliament passed the Clarity Act in 2000, prohibiting Ottawa from entering into secession talks unless Quebecers vote Yes to a straight-up question such as: Do you want Quebec to become an independent country? That rules out vague promises of “sovereignty-association” (as in the 1980 referendum) or “a new economic and political partnership” (1995). The act also requires the Yes side to carry by more than a thin margin.

Unless Layton is prepared to disregard both the Supreme Court and the Clarity Act, he would not be able to wave Quebec goodbye easily. Nor should he. What he should do is reassure voters that he stands with the high court and the law of the land.

Happily, for now at least most Quebecers have no stomach for a trip to the dark side. But that doesn’t make this issue hypothetical. Canadians have lived through two referenda. Where would Layton and the NDP stand if they were governing during a third drive to split the country? It would be good to know.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Read more about: