Canada is “still one crisis away from independence, one nationalist leap away from a YES victory”. We owe this observation to the most lucid federalist intellectual of the last quarter century, André Pratte. The former editor-in-chief of The Pressfounder of the Federal Idea then senator has just put his neurons at the service of Jean Charest, Conservative candidate.
Pratte had written this in his anti-sovereignist book, In wonderland (VLB). But that was 16 years ago. Is there still a separatist danger in the house? Yes, he made it clear to his English-speaking readers in December in his column for the National Post. The crisis is imminent. It will focus on secularism. “If ever the Supreme Court declares the law [sur la laïcité] unconstitutional, he writes, the anger and frustration in Quebec will reach levels that we only saw when the Meech Lake accord failed. »
Note for my younger readers: in 1990, this agreement to recognize in the Constitution the existence of Quebec as a “distinct society” was rejected by two provinces, relaying the opposition of a majority of English Canadians. Pratte continues: “At the time, support for the separation soared above 60%. Fortunately, the province was governed by a supremely able federalist premier (Robert Bourassa). How well said. I myself have written two works on this supreme skill, one entitled The cheater, the other the wrecker.
Is Pratte overestimating the magnitude of the Quebec backlash? We may think so, but who are we to contradict an adviser to Jean Charest? There is worse. According to him, compared to Bourassa, the current Prime Minister, François Legault, “is also an accomplished leader, but he is a separatist”. In short, we are one Supreme Court decision away from independence.
I would add to this prediction a winning condition: Jean Charest. He said that, as prime minister, his government would ask the Supreme Court to oppose to the State Secularism Act. In Quebec, Mr. Charest had never shown any appetite for banning religious symbols in the public sector and had rejected the recommendation of the Bouchard-Taylor commission to target judges, police officers and guards with the ban. from prison.
However, we had never heard Mr. Charest ask Ottawa to invalidate a Quebec law. During his nine years in power, at no time did Mr. Charest suggest that Quebeckers adhere to the Constitution that was imposed on us in 1982. He is now announcing that, as Prime Minister of Canada, he would ask the judges to apply , to invalidate a Quebec law, a constitution that he himself never had the courage to endorse. If you want to stir up anger and frustration, this is an interesting turnaround.
There are the substantive issues, and then there are the perceptions. The debate on the Secularism Act focuses, first, on measures for living together, then on Quebec’s ability to make its choices. Even people opposed to the law object to the federal government getting involved. This is the case of Québec solidaire and, on even days, of the Liberal Party of Québec. The National Assembly is therefore unanimous, not on the law, but on respect for the law.
The popularity of people who defend the opposite position weighs in the balance. The more that person is unpopular, the more difficult it is for him to generate support. Pollster Léger compared in October 2020 the good and bad opinions left by former prime ministers. Jean Charest is the most hated former Prime Minister in Quebec: 72% of Quebecers (and 79% of Francophones) still have a bitter taste of him. I do not remember that Pierre Elliott Trudeau at the time of the 1980 referendum or Jean Chrétien at the time of the 1995 referendum ever reached such a level of rejection.
Finally, there is the matter of timing. When will this diet crisis hit us? Justice takes its time. The Court of Appeal must first decide. This is only conjecture, but lawyers familiar with the matter inform me that the judges could hear the parties later this year, then render a judgment in early 2023. So it is in the following year, 2023-2024, that the Prime Minister of Canada would ask the Court to invalidate the law. Since the current government is a minority, and the lifespan of this type of government is less than two years, it is likely that an election would have taken place in the meantime. In the Charest scenario, the man would therefore be hard at work to make this gesture that generates discontent in Quebec.
The calendar
The time for the Supreme Court to hear the case, then to render a judgment, this undoubtedly takes us to 2025. We would therefore be in the last year of a potential second term for François Legault. This one would possibly be in reflection on the decision to pass the hand or to make the third mandate which he said in October to want to accomplish.
The political situation would then be very fluid. Defending the legacy of the Secularism Act and riding the wave of anger and frustration foreseen by friend Pratte would be tempting to lead him to victory again. If, worn out, he gave up his place, the name of his successor would be decisive. If it were Geneviève Guilbault, a convinced federalist, Canada could be saved; if it were Simon Jolin-Barrette, dark blue nationalist, he would be in peril.
And Jean Charest, Prime Minister of Canada, would have become a winning condition for Quebec’s access to independence. If the Yes party wins, he will obviously lose his job. And will become, reluctantly, the midwife of sovereign Quebec. What a spectacular end of career that would be!
[email protected]; blog: jflisee.org