Article content continued

“To have a country is more important than ever,” PKP says on his website. “A country doesn’t mean turning in on oneself. It’s a base for launching out towards the world. That is why, during the next elections [in 2018], I hope to get the mandate to realize concretely the independence of Quebec.”

Rather than lay out a program now for Quebec’s accession to independence, he projected it into the future by making two promises. First, to “engage in a dialogue with all the parties, political movements and organizations of civil society with the aim of working out the elements of a common strategy, and setting in motion an immediate and permanent campaign of the Parti Québécois and the Official [PQ] Opposition in favour of independence.” Brave words, with the substance undefined.

The second promise also puts off all specific steps to decisions taken in the future: “To define, at the conclusion of the research and reflection to be undertaken, and before the next general elections, the process aimed at leading Quebec to national independence.”

PKP, like the Parti Québécois, ignores the central issue in the real world: at what price can the PQ obtain the consent of the rest of Canada for Quebec’s secession?

So PKP totally avoids the central issue raised by the Supreme Court of Canada in its 1998 response to the reference on Quebec’s secession. The court ruled that there were two ways to attain independence: either by a successful revolution, or a negotiated amendment to the Constitution of Canada. A negotiated secession would require meeting four conditions: the test of democratic legitimacy (a clear answer to a clear question); the rule of law (abiding by the requirements of the Canadian constitution for its amendment); the principle of federalism (obtaining the consent of the other provinces); and recognizing the rights of minorities (in particular of the aboriginals).