I remember the “beautiful risk” that René Lévesque had accepted and imposed on his party’s caucus, on the strength of Trudeau Sr.’s commitment to reform Canadian federalism in the event of the No victory in the 1980 referendum, and after Brian Mulroney’s invitation to sign the Canadian Constitution “in honor and enthusiasm” in 1984. This was followed by the resignation of numerous ministers and denunciation by as many champions of independence, outside the government.
I remember the Liberal tidal wave, December 2, 1985; return of unconditional federalism, which seemed to bury the very idea of Quebec independence. During the following nine years, no appeal, recourse or address to the people of Quebec in favor of their independence. The only speeches promoting the independence of Quebec were reserved for the conventions of the leadership of the Parti Québécois… Like today.
I remember the disappointment and demobilization that followed the 1995 referendum. A ten-year vacuum, leading to the “lucid” manifesto in 2005, with Lucien Bouchard, Joseph Facal and company, from which the sovereigntist option has been put away for a long time.
I remember the crusade of the Liberal minister, Gaétan Barrette, in 2016-2017, supported by the Bloc Québécois, for the modification of the despotic Canada Health Act. Never has a Quebec minister, from all parties, been so harsh, in such green language, towards a Canadian government.
And you don’t need a good memory to recall the acrimonious mood Trudeau Jr. created and maintained throughout the recent public health crisis. Prime Minister François Legault has repeatedly denounced the interference and the condescending “lessons” of the son of the other, in particular with regard to the management of vaccination. And if there was only that…
But the Trudeauist paternalism, which was only threatening during the adoption, and the debates that preceded it, of Law 21 on secularism, from 2019 to 2021, returns to the charge, coupled with a declaration of war. against Bill 96 and the reform of the Charter of the French language. And it’s a good bet that Quebec’s request to broaden its immigration powers will only add a trench in the perpetual confrontation between Quebec and Canada.
Add to all this the encroachments of federal power on provincial jurisdictions, for more than forty years, which add to the tension, contribute to the confusion of citizen-voters and keep Canada artificially alive. (Constitutional federal jurisdictions are so far from the life of citizens that a federal general election cannot be limited to them at the risk of a turnout approaching that of the defunct school board elections.)
Whoever believed will believe. François Legault is not just a “former sovereignist”; he was an influential minister (for Education and Health) in the Bouchard and Landry governments, and believed enough in the cause to remain an opposition MP for six years, until 2009. It is decent to imagine that it was out of necessity, faced with the disinterest of the population and the lack of talent of its promoters, that François Legault gave up the sovereignist option to continue to get involved politically, with the hope of governing Quebec. No one, more than him, has ever rationally concluded and publicly declared that Quebec independence was, in itself, a “bad idea”. And so, for want of anything better, Canadian federalism is a necessary evil.
François Legault is a pragmatic man, who knows how to adapt to circumstances. I remember that when the manifesto was published Coalition for the Future of Quebec, with Charles Sirois, in 2011, François Legault rejected the idea of founding a political party. But when polls indicated that Quebeckers preferred him, nearly 60%, as a possible prime minister, he changed his mind. François Legault will not force anything, because he knows how to endure the necessary evils, which he has demonstrated over the past two years. He will follow Quebecers, according to their nationalist fervor and their need for emancipation and their desire for affirmation.
But Quebec nationalism has evolved a lot over the past twenty years, and today is no longer limited to the defense of French, against a backdrop of English conquest and burnt barns, by enlisting the artistic world. It is now a question of a global portrait of society, with clear values, a way of life, self-reflection, based on choices that did not exist a few decades ago, and which only slowly, gently, patiently, the beautiful words of “distinct society” materialize little by little.