At first glance, one might think that the Legault government has just created a new version of the Bélanger-Campeau commission of 1991.
Obviously, the context is no longer the same at all. The constitutional debate is far from being at the center of the concerns of the government and voters. There is no great demand from civil society for fundamental changes to the political regime.
The fact remains that we are, once again, before a working group of eminent personalities who will try to find a way out of a complicated situation for the government. But that’s where the comparisons should stop.
Bélanger-Campeau was a very broad commission, open to all political tendencies and to civil society, which sought a constitutional solution in the wake of the death of the Meech Lake agreement.
There were both representatives of the federal Liberal Party – then in opposition – and a seat for the Bloc Québécois, a newly formed party which was not even recognized as a parliamentary group in the Commons at the time. There, union centers, groups representing employers and the cooperative movement rubbed shoulders.
The working group formed by Mr. Legault brings together federalists and sovereignists, but does not give special place to other political tendencies or civil society groups.
There is even unease to see law professor Guillaume Rousseau named co-president when we know that he recently accused Québec solidaire of being favorable to sharia because he does not disapprove of the establishment of Islamic mortgage loans – a gratuitous attack since it is an instrument offered to the United States, Great Britain and even very secular France. A little due diligence would have avoided unnecessary partisan controversy.
Today, it seems much more like the government is running out of ideas and is creating a task force to come up with a few to implement by the end of its mandate.
Unlike Bélanger-Campeau, there will be no question of trying to imagine a solution outside the current constitutional regime. We will seek to “increase the autonomy of Quebec within Canada” and nothing else.
The opposition parties are not wrong to point out that this shows the failure of the ambiguous constitutional policy of the Legault government. It was thought that since the CAQ was neither federalist nor sovereignist, a moderate nationalist current would emerge to move Quebec forward.
The illusion of making gains by straddling the middle line has long been attractive to part of the electorate. But now that this approach does not seem to be working – and foreseeing the rejection of Quebec’s requests in the hot issue of immigration during Monday’s meeting between Prime Ministers Legault and Trudeau – we have to try something. But what ?
There is definitely the unilateral route. Quebec can, in fact, change its internal constitution without asking anyone’s opinion. But this amounts to superficial changes, like those brought by Law 96.
The Canadian Constitution allows provinces to amend their internal constitution. The text of the Constitution therefore says since Law 96 that “Quebecers form a nation” and that “French is the only official language of Quebec. It is also the common language of the Quebec nation.”
But, for the moment in any case, it is essentially a facade recognition and it does not in any way change the situation of French in Quebec or in Canada. This does not, for example, give a better balance of power when the time comes to ask for changes in immigration.
So why create a new committee? For the same reason that Robert Bourassa created the Bélanger-Campeau commission: to save time.
The Legault government will only be halfway through its term next fall. He has two years to turn the situation around and hope to win a third term. But he cannot hope to find an interlocutor in Ottawa ready to discuss with him.
If Justin Trudeau does not leave during the summer, the last thing that could interest him for the remainder of his mandate would be to negotiate an agreement aimed at giving more powers to Quebec. As for Pierre Poilievre, we should not expect him to want to do so at the very beginning of his mandate, if he were to be elected, as the polls predict.
In any case, the next Quebec elections will not be decided on very hypothetical and possible new powers for Quebec. They will depend much more on the quality of public services, in particular health, and the result will also be affected by the effects of a certain number of imponderables, such as the possible election of Donald Trump and a return of American protectionism.
The Legault government may have managed to gain a little time, but it should not bet that its committee, whatever the quality of its work, will offer it a new way out.
What do you think ? Participate in the dialogue