I kept the “Lévesque piastre” in my teenage bedroom. The small leaflet widely distributed by federalists during the 1970s stating that, in a sovereign Quebec, the Quebec currency would be worth no more, compared to the American one, than 75 cents. This is why the dollar bearing Lévesque’s photo was torn. A quarter of it was missing. Which obviously heralded an unspeakable catastrophe, because at that moment, the two currencies were at parity.
Applying this criterion, Quebec became sovereign in 1985. Yes, because that was the year when the Canadian dollar was only worth 73 US¢. It was higher in 1986, at 72 cents. Even more in 2003, at 64 cents. It was still there in 2020, at 74 cents.
In fact, if an economist had gone back in time to present, during the 1980 referendum campaign, the monetary roller coaster that Canada would embark on in the near future, one would have reasonably concluded that the level of uncertainty to come was unacceptable, damaging to the economy, stability, and even the mental health of our business leaders. We would have rushed, panicked, to the voting booth to vote Yes and get out of this announced monetary hell.
Okay, I’m exaggerating a bit. The fact remains that since the tabling of the new budget for year 1, a lot of ink and saliva have been devoted to the uncertainty that independence would cause, a fortiori if Quebec adopted its own currency. I don’t mind. But why is not a drop of these substances shed to describe the uncertainty resulting from our remaining in Canada?
Credible scenarios indicate that as global demand exceeds supply, the price of oil could surge in the coming years. With the Canadian dollar doped with black gold, it would become overvalued again, causing an artificial increase in the prices of exported Quebec products. The last time this happened, in the early 2000s, economists calculated that this caused us to lose 55,000 well-paid manufacturing jobs in five years, just as we like them. (That’s 18 times the number of jobs created by our massive investment in the Northvolt factory alone.)
Can the federalists guarantee us that, if we stay, this will not happen? I think the answer from the No camp is no. We are sailing on an ocean of uncertainty.
Let’s stay in oil. That from Alberta is one of the most energy-intensive, and therefore the most polluting, in the world. However, the European Union has decided to impose within two years an additional cost on imports of products found to have too heavy an ecological footprint. The first list of affected products should spare us, but it will gradually grow and harm our competitiveness. This is unfortunate, since our exports to the Union exceed 10 billion per year.
Can federalists guarantee us that Quebec will not be penalized for being part of an oil-producing country? That it won’t lose additional manufacturing jobs? I think the answer from the No camp is no. We are in the shifting sands of uncertainty.
Let’s talk about language and secularism. In recent years, the National Assembly has passed laws which, although not unanimous, enjoy a broad consensus in Quebec. They are contested in court, which is normal. But both the current Canadian government and the leader of the opposition have formally committed to asking the Supreme Court to remove from these laws the legal shield (the notwithstanding clause) which prevents the courts from invalidating them. Can federalists guarantee us that these laws wanted by Quebecers will still be valid in Canada in two, five, seven years? Same negative answer. We are, to use the words of Jean Charest, facing a black hole.
There are still things we are certain of. The political weight of Quebec within Canada is melting at the speed of the polar ice cap. Having decided to make Canada the most welcoming place in the world for immigration, Ottawa is accelerating this major trend. As demography is, in the final analysis, the mistress of politics, the linguistic and political balance will change. Outside Quebec, there are now more people who have Hindi or Punjabi as their mother tongue (1.2 million) than French (1 million).
Ditto for Chinese languages (Mandarin and Cantonese), at 1.3 million. They downgrade French even in the heart of the country, Ontario. At what point will the overall weight of Francophones fall below the critical mass that justifies maintaining the Official Languages Act? Can federalists guarantee that this will not happen? Obviously not. We are moving in the middle of fog.
We do not measure the collective mental burden that Canadian uncertainty puts us through. It’s scary in the end. During the 1995 referendum campaign, it was to the point where 80% of undecided people felt that there would be as much uncertainty after a Yes as after a No. A great expression of collective wisdom.
Fortunately, there are things we can be certain of. The “piaster in Plamondon” would not be subject to the ups and downs of Alberta oil. It would only be based on the strength and diversity of our own economy. Our green products will always be welcome in Europe. Our linguistic laws and laws on living together will never be subject to the moods of judges chosen for their faith in Trudeauism and multiculturalism and applying to our decisions a fundamental law that we have never negotiated or adopted. Our judges will apply our own Constitution. Within our country, our political weight will always be 100%. French will always be our official language.
I don’t know about you. But for me, just by mentioning these sovereignist certainties, I already feel less anxious.
Jean-François Lisée led the PQ from 2016 to 2018. He has just published Through the mouth of my pencils published by Somme Tout/Le Devoir. [email protected].