Charest States The Obvious

There seems to be a great deal of controversy surrounding Charest's comments about an independent Quebec:

The leader of the Parti Québécois says Premier Jean Charest handed the sovereignist movement a clear victory yesterday when he said Quebec has the economic means to become independent...

Charest said in a television interview in Paris that nobody's questioning Quebec's ability to go it alone, but added it's not in his province's interest to do so.

"The question today isn't whether we have the means," he said in the interview to be broadcast tomorrow. "Yes, we do. Nobody questions that.

"The real question is ... what is in our best interests? What is best for Quebec?.."

During the TV interview, Charest affirmed his commitment to federalism, describing it as an "ideal system" that allows Quebec to take its "place in the world."

"The phenomenon of globalization greatly changes the nature of the (sovereignty) debate," he said. "The more states belong to a larger unit, like in Europe, the more one evolves to larger sets, the less it is relevant, in my view, to choose independence."

The PQ seems to think that Charest has given them ammunition, simply by acknowledging a reasonable reality. Of course Quebec has the means to operate independently. This admission doesn't negate the logical near term economic consequences, nor does it suggest the transition would be easy. Charest's comments don't suggest that independence is the preferred route, in fact he argues the opposite. With a world that grows smaller daily, increasingly more connected, the notion of independence goes against the move to globalization.

I see no problem with the federalist side moving beyond the idea that Quebec is too weak to form a nation. This tactic belittles the French people and backfires in the sense that it allows sovereignists to dominate the "pride" angle. If you start with the premise that Quebec has the means to form a nation, then you can look at the practical consequence without the emotional attachment. Only a complete propagandist would argue that Quebec can achieve independence without some economic backlash. Ask 100 economists what business fears the most, and I bet the answer would be uncertainty. Separation represents uncertainty, there is no way to sugarcoat this reality. Separation also entails an enormous infusion of money as Quebec assumes the duties of the federal government. Can Quebec survive the initial hardship, no question, but there is a cost and that is objectively real. Then the question moves to what it always should be- is Quebec better off in or out of Canada?

The more the PQ argues that Quebecers are a people, the more it supports the notion that Canada actually works. Afterall, everything that has been achieved has occurred within the confines of the Canadian mosaic. A strong Quebec speaks to the notion of tolerance, and recent polling suggests we are moving forward:

we've come to grips with the formerly contentious policy of having two "official" tongues. National support for bilingualism now stands at a high-water mark: 64 per cent. In Quebec, 89 per cent are ifavorur, and support continues to grow in previously hard-to-sell regions like British Columbia (49 per cent) and the Prairies (47 per cent.) Only 12 per cent of Canadians now rate the state of English-French relations as a very serious problem,

The PQ makes much ado about nothing in the end, Charest merely states the obvious and it doesn't negate the negative.