Last June, the CAQ government announced the creation of an Advisory Committee on Constitutional Issues for Quebec within the Canadian Federation. Today, it is the turn of the Quebec Liberal Party (PLQ) to join the fray by proposing the adoption of a Quebec constitution.
Evoking the need to unite in the face of the “divisive” discourse of the Coalition avenir Québec (CAQ) and the Parti québécois (PQ), the PLQ is serving us an idea that is, however, nothing new.
Indeed, as the president of the party’s political commission, André Pratte, was keen to point out, the idea of a Quebec constitution germinated in the PLQ in a report led by Paul Gérin-Lajoie in… 1967. However, it must be noted that despite many years in government, the Liberal Party has never presented a concrete constitutional project for Quebec.
For its part, the PQ has proposed different versions of it. The last iteration dates back to 2007 with the presentation of Bill 191 by Daniel Turp, which proposed the adoption of a Quebec constitution aimed in particular at protecting the French language, defending Quebec’s jurisdictions and guaranteeing the rights and freedoms recognized by the Quebec Charter.
Many obstacles
Beyond its symbolic character, the constitution desired by the PLQ would remain locked by the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and its interpretation by the courts.
The lack of novelty behind the PLQ’s approach is not the only issue. Fundamentally, the very idea of a Quebec constitution illustrates the failure of the status quo for Quebec and demonstrates that the Canadian Constitution is not suitable for defending the legitimate values and interests of the Quebec nation.
On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that the Liberal project would defend the values and interests of Quebec any better: it is not certain that the PLQ’s proposal would contain the principles of secularism contained in the State Secularism Act.
After the Bouchard-Taylor commission and all the public and political deliberations that have taken place over the last few years, it is deplorable to note that a project that is supposed to “unite” leaves aside this essential value of our society.
Unfortunately, in view of the current steps taken by the federal government to challenge the State Secularism Act, it seems highly likely that any attempt by Quebec to assert its identity would necessarily be contested by Ottawa.
Furthermore, if we rely on the PLQ’s strong reluctance to use the derogation provision in order to protect the principles of secularism, its project risks quickly finding itself invalidated by the Canadian Charter.
Finally, it is important to highlight the limits of such a project in the context of Canadian federalism. Constitutionalist Jacques-Yvan Morin wrote that a constitution would be “both the mirror and the ideal portrait” of the Quebec people. However, a real constitutional exercise for Quebec cannot ignore fundamental questions such as the office of head of state and the body responsible for interpreting and applying the constitution.
For Quebec to be able to adopt a constitution that truly reflects its identity and values, it must be able to do so as an independent nation, free from any subordination to federal laws or judgments.
The PLQ wants us to believe that it is proposing a unifying project, but in reality, it is only recycling old ideas. A project that, in the long run, will bring us back to the same eternal observation: Quebec will not be able to fully flourish and equip itself with a constitution in its image as long as it remains caught in the straitjacket of Canadian federalism.