With Canada Day approaching, it seems appropriate to reflect on the meaning of the country that is Canada and the future of Quebec in the context of a post-national Canada. There are many Quebeckers who feel real discomfort identifying as Canadians. In the words of political scientist Guy Laforest, they are exiles from within, people who feel ill at ease, who live like foreigners within their own country.1.
Quebecers have long nurtured a Canadian dream, to use the expression described by Laforest2. The old Canadian dream of Quebecers was essentially based on national dualism, on the constitutional recognition of the two nations, of the two founding peoples of Canada. To varying degrees or in different forms, dualism was the fundamental position of Étienne Parent, George-Étienne Cartier, Louis-Hippolyte La Fontaine, Henri Bourassa, André Laurendeau, Claude Ryan3… Federalism was to allow the Quebec nation to enjoy sufficient autonomy to protect its cultural identity and flourish according to its own values, as a condition of joining the Canadian political nation.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was imposed on Quebec does not incorporate the federal spirit and denies the existence of the Quebec nation. It does not take into account the fact that Quebec forms a distinct national society in Canada. It promotes multiculturalism and undermines the powers of the National Assembly, particularly in linguistic matters.
With the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord in 1990, which aimed to repair the constitutional affront of 1982, the dualist dream of Quebecers is truly dead and buried!
The Constitution of 1982 was not submitted to the approval of citizens, just like that of 1867. The no to the sovereignty of Quebec has never meant a formal and enthusiastic yes to Canada on the part of Quebecers. It is not trivial to point out that no Quebec government has endorsed the Constitution Act 1982.
Closed door
In 2017, the Liberal government of Philippe Couillard invited Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to a dialogue on Quebec’s affirmation policy entitled Quebecers, our way of being Canadians, highlighting in particular the feeling of internal exile of Quebecers. Justin Trudeau cavalierly closed the door to any discussion on this subject even before reading the document! Closer to home, Prime Minister François Legault has demanded full powers over immigration from Ottawa, with similar results… The law 96 recently adopted by Quebec and relating to the official and common language of Quebec will not change substantially. constitutional and political dynamics in Canada.
The repeated demand for national recognition of Quebec in the Canadian Constitution is inadmissible, even outdated, in a Canada that has become postnational, multicultural, even diverse.
Indeed, according to Justin Trudeau, Canada would have become the first post-national state in the world without a common culture, without its own identity, without a welcoming society, based on the constitutional recognition of individual rights and the diversity of identities as an end4. In short, Canada would constitute a kind of disembodied container. In the same line of thought, by adopting a massive immigration policy, Canada promotes a progressive marginalization of the political weight of Quebec in Canada. The threat of assimilation is greater than ever.
The existential question then arises acutely for Quebecers: can they join and participate fully in the Canadian adventure without abandoning their own identity? Is Quebec condemned to disappear as a nation, to die slowly, in the demographic and constitutional context of Canada?
To avoid living in exile inside Canada for a long time to come, and before it is too late, Quebecers must think about their collective future and mobilize. Isn’t Quebec, “today and forever, a distinct society, free and capable of assuming its destiny and its development?5 »?
1. A Quebec exiled in the federation – Essay on intellectual history and political thoughtGuy Laforest, Quebec-America, 2014
2. Trudeau: The Death of a Canadian DreamGuy Laforest, Editions du Septentrion, 1992
3. Ibid.
5.Robert Bourassa, Journal of the debates of the National Assembly34e legislature 1D session, Friday, June 22, 1990 – vol. 31 No. 62