At a panel discussion at U of T’s Rotman School of Business last Thursday to mark the decennial of the Quebec referendum on sovereignty, the consensus on the question of Canada’s preparedness for a future referendum was a consistent “I don’t know.”

The panel included former Ontario Premier Bob Rae, law professors Jean-François Gaudreault-Desbiens and Sujit Choudry, and Luke Turgeon of the department of political science. Each speaker illustrated the unclear future of Canadian unity from a different angle.

Not much has changed in the way of public and political opinion in the decade that has passed since Canada came to the “brink of destruction” over separatism. Public opinion polls that show uncertainty over whether Canada is ready for a second referendum have varied only slightly since 1995, according to a Oct 22 report in the Globe and Mail.

Turgeon, a PhD candidate, said that young Quebecers tend to be indifferent to Canadian federalism. “It’s not as though they are resentful; they just don’t care,” he said.

Prof. Gaudreault-Desbiens added to this by quashing the common argument that since young Quebecers are more globally connected, they are not as susceptible to Quebec separatist nationalism.

“There is no connection between cosmopolitanism and [the rejection of] movements of self-determination,” and that this argument provides a false sense of security.

On the political front, there has been little action on the part of federal or provincial governments since the last referendum. “Quebec’s dissatisfactions have not been addressed, despite the federal government’s openness to asymmetry,” said Gaudreault-Desbiens.

According to Desbiens, the Clarity Act, which requires that a secession question be clearly phrased and defined, has been the only significant policy reform on the part of the federal government in response to the referendum, with no positive, proactive piece of legislation to complement it.

Rae argued that Canada cannot lose sight of the fundamental otherness and sameness that exists within it. He argued that the best way to approach provincial dissatisfactions are through practical policy reforms that clarify the powers of provincial governments and their federal counterparts.

“I think that there are a lot of things that can be done to address the needs of the country without constitutional amendment,” he said after the panel.

Rather than asking whether we are prepared for another referendum, Rae focused on whether or not Canadians want another referendum. According to him, Canadians “simply do not want the country to break up.” The last referendum was hardly about the destruction of the federation, he argued, but rather a demand for an improved relationship between the federal and the provincial governments.

Both Turgeon and Gaudreault-Desbiens, however, attacked the myths of Canadian and Quebec nationalisms. Turgeon argued that English Canadians see Quebec nationalism as aggressive, angry, and even racist, juxtaposing it against a softer Canadian nationalism that values diversity, pluralism, and communication.

Professor Gaudreault-DesBiens added that the Canadian myth of pluralism must be confronted if we want to address the issues that led to a referendum ten years ago.

“Canada is tolerant of diversity so long as it is not deep and it is not political….Canada is not a community of communication.”