When asked what he thought of the sovereignty bill introduced by his Alberta counterpart, Danielle Smith, Quebec Premier Francois Legault courageously avoided the substance of the matter.
“Look, what the Premier of Alberta is proposing is to give the government the power to do things without going through the Legislative Assembly,” he said. I don’t know if the PQ [Parti québécois] suggest that? »
Of course, this is not what the PQ leader, Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, was asking for, and François Legault knew it very well. Mme Smith herself soon realized that this made no sense and announced that her bill would be amended so that it respected the most basic rules of parliamentary democracy.
Rather, it was a matter of knowing whether the Prime Minister was prepared to imitate the Alberta government and to give himself the means to suspend the application on Quebec territory of federal laws that would encroach on Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction or that would cause it a harm.
“It should inspire Quebec. Alberta has surpassed the Government of Quebec in matters of nationalism, it must be done! launched the MP for Matane-Matapédia, Pascal Bérubé.
After all, Mr. Legault continues to criticize the Trudeau government for not respecting Quebec’s areas of jurisdiction! Above all, Alberta wants to protect its oil industry from Ottawa’s interference. Quebec could very well wish to evade not only federal environmental assessments, but also the provisions of the Official Languages Act or even CRTC decisions that it deems detrimental to its identity.
In reality, a PQ government would probably not want to go down this road either, even if the referendum that Paul St-Pierre Plamondon has agreed to hold in a first term is postponed.
In 2004, faced with the impasse in which the independence movement found itself, the director of National Action, Robert Laplante, launched a debate that would deeply divide the PQ for years.
According to him, an elected sovereignist government would have the legitimacy to make “gestures of rupture” incompatible with the Canadian Constitution even before the holding of a referendum.
Backed by Jacques Parizeau, the National Youth Committee of the PQ believed itself authorized to adopt a proposal to this effect, despite the strong opposition of Bernard Landry, who categorically refused to “break constitutional legality”. The national congress of June 2005, marked by his resignation, proved him right, but the idea continued to gain ground.
In 2008, the former president of the CSN, who became co-president of the Sovereignty Council, Gérald Larose, called for “dismissing referendumism” in favor of “sovereigntist governance”.
At its founding convention in 2012, the defunct Option nationale (ON) also resolved that a government formed by ON would not wait for a referendum to ensure that all laws applicable on Quebec territory emanate solely from the ‘National Assembly.
If his sovereignty bill allowed Mme Smith to be elected leader of the United Conservative Party, it is far from clear that Alberta voters, who will go to the polls next spring, will be so enthusiastic. If Quebecers have long since become accustomed to quarrels with Ottawa, they no longer want a major constitutional crisis, which would be inevitable.
The problem is that Mr. Legault does not seem to have any solution to propose to avoid the dilution of Quebec in the Canadian whole. To those who advocated “gestures of rupture”, Bernard Landry could reply: “When we leave Canada, it will be for good, and legally. Of course, the Prime Minister can no longer say such a thing. During the last election campaign, he even presented himself as the new champion of the fight against independence.
“In a federative context, each [ordre] of government has its powers. When you are in a federation, you have to negotiate,” explained the interim leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, Marc Tanguay, whom the Alberta example is certainly not likely to inspire.
After denouncing the softness of the Couillard government, Mr. Legault had specifically demanded during the 2018 campaign a “clear mandate” to negotiate with Ottawa additional powers in the area of immigration. With the result that we know.
While he secured an even stronger mandate on Oct. 3, his inaugural speech last week was completely silent on the CAQ’s “New Project for Quebec Nationalists.”
We had understood for a long time that this document, which was intended to be the roadmap to autonomy, was only a marketing stunt. Alberta may not be setting the best example, but the same can be said of the Legault government. In reality, they find themselves in the same cul-de-sac.