Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe surprised many on November 9 when he said he sees his province as “a nation within the nation of Canada”. Now, what should we understand from his statement?
Canada and the national phenomenon
Although in Justin Trudeau’s Canada, it now appears fundamental to “reestablish the nation-to-nation relationship with Indigenous peoples” (as we found in his government’s first Speech from the Throne in 2015), modern Canada s t is built in large part by seeking to crush political communities and minority identity homes… Aboriginal peoples and Acadians remember that. Even if Quebec quickly obtained institutional levers to preserve its distinct character (from the Quebec Act of 1774), its population also remembers the many assimilation undertakings that were initiated against it.
However, how many nations, at least distinct societies, do we find within the Canadian federation today? The exact answer depends on the criteria used to attribute the qualifier to a given population.
But if we stick to certain traits that we typically associate with the national or societal phenomenon, we must recognize that our country is indeed built on a plurality of nations and constituent partners.
Among these traits, there is the desire for this type of political community to see itself recognized by the other partners as forming itself a singular people (demos) and driven by particular interests. There is also the aspiration for this same collectivity to govern and determine itself (which does not necessarily mean obtaining its own sovereign state), in order to preserve what makes it a distinct society. It is this logic, it seems to me, that is found behind Moe’s statement.
Distinct societies of Canada
Accepting that Canada is made up of multiple distinct societies does not seem to me to minimize Quebec’s very unique experience in North America. On the contrary, accepting this premise seems to me to be a promising way to better (re) reconcile and add together the different political visions, which evolve over time, which are expressed and sometimes collide within the federation. And I’m not the only one who thinks this way.
In November 1967, under the leadership of Ontario Premier John Robarts, the heads of provincial governments gathered in the Queen City for the Confederation of Tomorrow Conference. Even if John Robarts’ vision was to become even more clear when he co-chaired the Working Group on Canadian Unity with Jean-Luc Pepin (1977-1979), he was already the champion of an innovative conception of Canadian regionalism. . For him, any federal arrangement that does not take into account the distinctiveness of Quebec AND other Canadian regions was sooner or later doomed to failure. To listen to many in Western Canada, this failure would be very close… it would be right behind us!
Alas! The Pepin-Robarts report was quickly tabled by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Subsequently, contemporary Canada was rather re-imagined on admittedly pluralist bases (multiculturalism), admittedly open in principle to the self-determination of the indigenous peoples (article 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982), but essentially minimizing the various identity centers, each forming regional political communities, where a first-hand citizenship is exercised.
The West, the regions, and why we have to get out of the status quo
As I showed recently with Evelyne Brie1, the overwhelming majority of people in Western Canada consider their region to be largely ignored in decisions made in Ottawa.
Likewise, over the past twenty years or so, fewer and fewer citizens in the West – this is also the case in all other Canadian regions – have taken the view that Canadian federalism has more advantages than advantages. disadvantages.
However, this trend does not herald the imminent break-up of the federation; states are proving to be particularly resilient political organizations. However, combined with an increase in the overall rate of dissatisfaction with the functioning of the federal system, this trend is serious and calls for caution. If no reform is undertaken to meet the recurring demands of certain partners – in particular to obtain more self-government and to be able to preserve the foundations of their community – from the register of division, we could indeed move on to that of dislocation.
But back to Scott Moe’s release. As he clarified, his statement was not intended to promote any secessionist movement. Rather, it is a question of drawing inspiration from a discourse, one that was historically maintained by Quebec, in order to hope to do better in the federal game. Concretely, Moe calls for an asymmetric logic between Ottawa and the partners of the federation, so that each of them has the autonomy necessary to develop as it sees fit and meet its own needs.
Of course, it should be remembered that many of Quebec’s historic demands have gone unheeded. However, Moe’s intention is not in vain. The multiplication of such autonomist discourses in the federation could restore a certain balance in the balance of power between Ottawa and the provinces. Ultimately, taking these legitimate demands seriously seems to me the way to go if we actually want to make Canada this “federation that belongs to the world of tomorrow”, this time to reinterpret Pierre Elliott Trudeau’s formula.
1. Read “A Country Divided: Identity, Federalism and Regionalism in Canada” What do you think? Express your opinion