The difficulties facing the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) are partly explained by its “neither sovereignist nor federalist” policy. For a little over 60 years, Quebec politics was mainly organized around the sovereignist-federalist divide: some, represented by the Parti Québécois (PQ), advocated independence, while others, represented by the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ), advocated belonging to Canada.
This cleavage reached its maximum degree of intensity during the referendums of 1980 and 1995. Since then, it has been gradually relegated to the background of political debate, opening the field to other cleavages and political formations.
This was manifested in particular by the accession of the Democratic Action of Quebec (ADQ) to official opposition status in 2007, then by the election of the CAQ in 2018.
Advocating a third political path, the ADQ and the CAQ maintained that the constitutional and referendum debates had divided Quebecers and slowed the development of the province. In their eyes, it was necessary to focus instead on the effectiveness of the State and identity issues such as language, immigration and secularism.
This is how they developed what we can call, drawing inspiration from French policy regarding the debate on Quebec sovereignty, the “neither sovereignist nor federalist” policy, in other words, the “neither sovereignist nor federalist” policy. neither nor “.
Even if “neither-nor” appealed to voters for a certain time, this policy is incoherent, leads to inaction and slows down the development of Quebec.
If there is one question on which we cannot be neutral, it is that which concerns the status of Quebec within Canada. In this regard, there are only two answers: either we want to leave Canada, or we want to stay there.
What is autonomism, anyway, if it is not the idea that Quebec must be sovereign within Canada, therefore a vision of federalism? Far from being a third way, autonomism presupposes belonging to the Canadian federation.
The “neither-nor” is reminiscent of a married person who, when asked whether they are married or not, refuses to answer, which is insane to say the least.
Deciding on the future of Quebec is neither an ideology nor a strategy; it is an existential question that anyone wishing to get politically involved in must answer.
Immobilism
“Neither-nor” also leads to immobility. By refusing to choose between sovereignty and federalism, the CAQ proves incapable of fully involving Quebec in federalism and benefiting from the advantages it provides.
Let’s think about the issue of immigration, where the CAQ prefers to criticize the federal government and beg for more money than to begin negotiations with it to better distribute asylum seekers and review the admission of temporary workers. and obtain more resources.
How can we explain that the CAQ did not invoke article 33 of the Canada-Quebec Accord on Immigration – which allows the management of immigration between Ottawa and Quebec to be revised – or proposed to organize a federal summit? provincial on immigration, if not because of its “neither-nor” policy?
Let us also think about the negotiations on health transfers, negotiations at the end of which the CAQ was content to accept the offer of the federal government instead of rallying the provinces to its cause and exercising a balance of power in the face of Ottawa.
Since coming to power, the CAQ has not entered into any significant partnership with the provinces or made gains that strengthen Quebec’s status within Canada. She preferred to unilaterally amend the Canadian Constitution, with Bill 96, without consulting the provinces or Ottawa.
Such inaction hampers Quebec’s economic development. Rather than undertaking projects with other provinces, for example in energy, green transition or internal trade, the CAQ is content to go it alone while continuing to receive federal transfers.
By thus making “neither-nor” the common thread of its political action, the CAQ is pursuing an incoherent policy which can only lead to an impasse. In politics, it is better to have a clear line than to cultivate inconsistency.