In the wake of the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982, Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau declared that his text would be valid for 1000 years. A true act of rebuilding Canada without Quebec, this coup de force, which will be 40 years old on April 17, takes on the appearance of an immutable fatality.
No political formation in power or close to being, in Quebec and Canada, wants to play in a new constitutional film. The formula for amending the Constitution, which requires the unanimity of the provincial parliaments or the agreement of 7 provinces (out of 10) accounting for more than 50% of the population, is a complex definition simply designating a double lock.
On this fortieth anniversary, as on the thirtieth and twentieth, we can thus repeat the same grievances. The unilateral patriation of the Constitution marks the day when Canada was able to define itself without Quebec; it marks the end of the concept of a binational Canada with two “founding peoples”. In light of the recognition of the rights of the First Nations, perpetually forgotten by history, this outdated concept of two founding peoples has however lost strength in recent years.
The lack of interest in constitutional negotiations among the population and the political class, coupled with the decline in the demographic weight of Quebec (and its influence), further limits the prospects for a breakthrough, especially since the Liberals of Trudeau Jr. the image of the father. These are just “old quibbles” for them.
Quebec must find creative ways to sow seeds for the future in this incomplete framework: fiercely defend its areas of jurisdiction and demand their expansion; tirelessly protect its distinct language, culture and institutions (while respecting minority rights); provide Quebecers, in all their diversity, with conditions conducive to their development and their integration into the melting pot of Francophone nations. Nowadays, the taste for dreams and adventure, as well as national pride, goes beyond the strict constitutional framework.
The anniversary of the patriation of the Constitution is also the 40th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, another reviled legacy of Trudeau Sr. For supporters of pure British parliamentarianism, it marked the beginning of the era of “government by judges” and the triumph of individual rights over collective rights.
Seen from Quebec, certain judgments have bad press, among others when it comes to the rights of religious minorities (wearing of the kirpan at school, the turban in the RCMP, etc.). But we too often forget that the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms resembles its federal counterpart.
The problem, as pointed out today in our pages by the holder of the Canada Research Chair in Quebec and Canadian Studies, Alain-G. Gagnon is the superimposition of the federal charter on the Quebecois. Its precedence over the laws passed by Quebec is a restriction that remains just as unacceptable 40 years after the fact. It is not for nothing that the National Assembly spoke with one voice this week to denounce the “affront” of repatriation, which continues to “produce harmful effects on the autonomy of Quebec and its ability to maintain and develop its collective personality.
The time may have come for our elected officials to give Quebec a special constitution, as proposed by former Liberal minister Benoît Pelletier, professor at the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa. This would be an opportunity to reaffirm our individual and collective values, as well as our commitment to evolve in a nation whose official and common language is French.
Coming back to the Canadian Charter of Rights, the fact remains that its adoption also led to considerable progress towards protecting citizens from arbitrary police action and the mood swings of elected governments, the latter certainly do not have the monopoly of virtue. At the Supreme Court, famous constitutional cases have advanced a multitude of rights for women, French-speaking minorities outside Quebec, the LGBTQ community, people with disabilities, Indigenous peoples, and more.
Neither perfect nor outrageous, the principles and values that emerged from these key judgments reflect the evolution of Canada and Quebec as pluralist and democratic societies in which politics can no longer claim a monopoly on representation.
In its necessary and legitimate quest to aspire to greater autonomy, Quebec will have to come to terms with the inevitable societal transformations that are at work here as elsewhere. They relate less to the repatriation of the Constitution than to the assertion of an irrepressible desire for individuality in liberal societies, transformed for better and for worse by the globalization of trade and the digital revolution.
Without this reinvention of discourse, Quebec’s demands will generate popular support that we can situate between resignation and oblivion.