“A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle, […] the joint possession of a rich legacy of memories […]. The desire to live together, thethe courage to continue to assert the inheritance that we have received undivided. existence of a nation is a daily plebiscite. —Ernest Renan
With the national holiday approaching, it is appropriate to reflect on our collective future, to assess the distance traveled on the road to freedom and to consider the efforts that we still have to make.
On November 15, 1976, I was 18 and voting for the first time. I then had the intimate feeling of participating in something big and beautiful at the same time. I dreamed of freedom and independence for Quebec. With the election of the first sovereignist government, I believed with great naivety that the people had embarked on a process of national liberation.
Then came the referendum of May 20, 1980, with a no all the more cruel as the question on a mandate to negotiate was soft. The resulting political weakening of Quebec opened the door to Trudeau Sr., who had promised Quebecers change…
This is how Quebec found itself in 1982 with a Constitution that denied the national existence of Quebecers and weakened the powers of the National Assembly. It is not trivial to point out that the Canadian Constitution of 1982 was not supported by any political party in Quebec.
The Meech Accord of 1987 was intended to help redress the constitutional affront of 1982. I remember as if it were yesterday the strong and solemn words spoken by Robert Bourassa on June 22, 1990 in the National Assembly, at the following Meech’s failure: “English Canada must understand very clearly that whatever we say, whatever we do, Quebec is, today and forever, a distinct society, free and capable of assume his destiny. »
At this precise moment in our history, I believed that the country of Quebec was within reach. But Bourassa the wrecker softened by accepting at a discount the so-called indigestible porridge of Charlottetown, which notably had the effect of trivializing the distinct society, in a Canada clause enshrining the equality of the provinces and multiculturalism. The historical vision of the two founding peoples was only a mirage.
These last attempts to reform federalism having failed, the Parizeau government, influenced by Lucien Bouchard, raised the question of Quebec’s status in 1995 essentially in these terms: “Do you accept that Quebec becomes sovereign, after having formally offered Canada a new economic and political partnership…” This last referendum ended in a narrow victory for the no.
Since then, the sovereignist option has barely reached the 35% threshold. This option seems to be of less and less interest to young people. We don’t talk about it or we avoid talking about it for electoral reasons, so as not to scare people. The PQ is routed.
Quebec is demanding full powers over immigration from the federal government. Without a real balance of power as a nation or distinct society within the Canadian framework, Quebec will likely have to suffer yet another rebuff. Moreover, Prime Minister Trudeau has already twice rejected this request from Quebec. What will Prime Minister Legault do in the face of the federal no?
Moreover, will the federal government’s challenge to Bill 96 on the official and common language of Quebec ignite the fuse of a future confrontation leading to a constitutional crisis? Of course, Quebeckers form a nation, and French is the only official language of Quebec. But what is the relative weight of sections 90.Q1 and 90.Q2 added to the Constitution Act of 1867 with regard to multiculturalism, institutional bilingualism and the principle of provincial equality in Canada?
Neither Lévesque, nor Parizeau, nor Bouchard succeeded in convincing Quebeckers of the necessity of sovereignty. For many Quebecers, the heart is gone; there have been too many dashed hopes. Something broke.
Will Prime Minister Legault become the repairman, Brother André of the national question, by changing a no into a yes? But how do you get there by resigning yourself in advance to not using the referendum tool? Doesn’t the path to freedom pass through a yes to oneself?
It seems ultimately that Yvon Deschamps was right to say that what Quebecers want is an independent Quebec in a united Canada!