In The duty of June 13, Étienne-Alexandre Beauregard wrote a text on “Le pari caquiste” in which he tries to justify the movement of former PQ members towards the party of François Legault. In this text, it is not without recalling that it was not only former PQ deputies who decided to join the CAQ, but also many activists, including young people whom we were both able to meet within the PQ youth wing.
As Mr. Beauregard’s text indicates, this exodus is often explained by CAQ identity claims, which are at the heart of this political movement. These new activists use the advances of the CAQ on the subjects of language and secularism to explain their choice. However, Quebec is still bound by a constitution that it never signed and which does not recognize any power allowing it to assert its distinct character within Canada.
Thus, without wanting to diminish the merit of the government of François Legault for these advances, the fact remains that they seem evasive and even ephemeral in the face of the legislative constraints that this constitution can impose on a nationalist government. But if this bet seems justified, is it calculated? We can easily get a sense of deja vu. A look back at our history would allow us to analyze the situation properly.
The caquiste bet mentioned by Étienne-Alexandre Beauregard greatly resembles the “beautiful risk” that a certain René Lévesque had proposed after his defeat in the referendum. However, he had in mind to reintegrate a distinct Quebec within Canada to constitutionally create a real confederation that would unite the two founding peoples. This “beautiful risk” had led to a real constitutional proposal led by Brian Mulroney. Proposal that ended in the failure of the Meech Lake Accord and paved the way for a second referendum on sovereignty. […] We had to wait for Parizeau’s determination to hold a second referendum and try to resolve the strange situation that meant that Quebec lived under a constitution that it had never ratified.
Wanting to repeat this historic bet could, however, cause us to fall back into a constitutional impasse. […]. For laws 21 and 96 not to result in a sword in the water with the intervention of the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Legault will have to impose his vision. Unless the latter does not really want to stay in Canada.
It is therefore good to remember that the Canadian Constitution of 1982 is still in place and that it will oppose hasd vidam aeternam a wall to Quebec identity claims. The journey towards renewed federalism that François Legault hopes to be able to establish in Quebec has only just begun. Without constitutional reform or the threat of eventual sovereignty, all its efforts can only be a smokescreen.
In the press conferences of Bernard Drainville and Caroline St-Hilaire as CAQ candidates, we were able to hear, as the only justification for their departure from the sovereignist ideal, the fact that Quebecers had no appetite for it. The CAQ’s bet is therefore to make substantial gains on the specific characteristics of Quebec’s identity, but without claiming to want to become sovereign in the event of a categorical refusal from Ottawa. The party thus leaves in the hands of the federal Parliament the ultimate decision concerning the future of the distinct character of Quebec society.
If Quebecers really want to assert their distinct character in a united Canada, Mr. Legault will have no choice but to put pressure on the federal government to fuel new constitutional negotiations. Without checks and balances or the threat of eventual sovereignty, it seems absurd to think that Ottawa will follow. The caquiste bet is compared to a huge bet on a risky hand.
Some will tell you that another defeat in the referendum is not desirable, but why would systematic refusals from Ottawa be more desirable? Does Mr. Legault still want to leave the future of Quebec’s identity in the hands of the Canadian government? The constitutional impasse must remain a reason for Quebecers to obtain full powers to assume their destiny. The new political axis of the “identity schism” is so vague that it hides the root of the problem and the resulting impasse.
Back to square one, then. Quebec decides, once again, to postpone its inevitable destiny until tomorrow. It is clear that our people is perhaps made to relive its history constantly until it becomes Louisiana.