Félix Leclerc was once asked what he thought of American civilization. “That would be a good thing,” replied the poet. We would have gotten the same answer if we had asked the late Benoît Pelletier to tell us what he thought of Canadian federalism.
With his engaging smile and the wisdom he exuded even at the start of his career, Professor Pelletier obviously left us much too early, at 64 years old. (As you know, sixty is the new forty.) But in his inscrutable leniency, fate will have wanted to spare him from still being among the living at the moment when a Canadian prime minister, with the last name Trudeau, greedily tramples on the jurisdictions of Quebec, and shamelessly asserts that “citizens do not care which level of government is responsible for what”.
The contempt for the constitutional order expressed in this sentence is such that we do not know whether to bring out Robert Bourassa’s expression “dominant federalism” or that of Gérald Godin “enculative federalism”. A feeling of disgust that the current president of the political commission of the Liberal Party of Quebec (PLQ), André Pratte, translated as follows on not to “give a damn”. This is particularly the case for the Prime Minister of Canada, who should be the guardian of the federal system, based on the sharing of powers guaranteed by the Constitution. By making fun of a central aspect of the Canadian regime, Mr. Trudeau is throwing our Constitution in the trash. To then claim to want to collaborate with the provinces is cynical and hypocritical. »
Before leaving us, Benoît Pelletier had sent his federalist friends two strong signals. A first in the pages of Duty, just after the defeat of October 2022. In “Let the PLQ rise! “, he called on his former party to return “to its roots with regard to the political and constitutional future of Quebec and [à redevenir] criticism of the Canadian political system. The Quebec Liberals’ support for federalism is part of the “fundamental architecture” of the party, and is “sincere, assumed and affirmed.” He added a “but”: “Today, however, it seems to have become unconditional, without regard to the fate that the Canadian federation may wish to reserve for Quebec. This ex cathedra profession of faith in Canadian federalism, regardless of its evolution, leads to a certain resignation in the face of the vicissitudes of the federal system, as applied in this country. »
He took up this idea in an interview given in February last year to colleague Antoine Robitaille, from QUB. He wanted the PLQ to embody not federalist resignation, but federalist demands. And in this sense, he wanted his party to follow in the footsteps of the Parti Québécois’ request to convene a new commission on the future of Quebec.
“Quebecers, for several years, have shown signs of weariness with regard to the national issue,” acknowledged Pelletier, “but political leadership should, on the contrary, indicate to politicians to go beyond this weariness, to give people back their senses. hope and to give them back the taste to fight for ideas, particularly ideas that go in the direction of defending the interests of Quebec within Canada. » He castigated, again, the PLQ’s “unconditional” support for federalism.
If federalist support were, on the contrary, to be “conditional”, it is because the PLQ would have to keep alive, somewhere in its speech, the possibility of a departure from the federation, albeit reluctantly, constrained and forced by the events. Robert Bourassa, master of Machiavellianism in these matters, liked to repeat that sovereignty was Quebec’s “card up its sleeve” (he was careful never to take it out of it). Jean Charest did not have a drop of sovereignist blood in his system, but regularly repeated that sovereignist sentiment in Quebec should not be underestimated, and that an independent Quebec was viable. In a day of great courage, he even contradicted pro-Canadian French President Nicolas Sarkozy by asserting on the steps of the Élysée that in the event of a Yes victory, France would have no other option than to support Quebec . Philippe Couillard broke with this framework, maintaining in particular that Quebec would be “bankrupt” if it made the mistake of moving away from the Canadian cocoon. The Pelletier doctrine would therefore mean flirting with sovereignty, without ever marrying it.
Those who, like me, believe that the trilogy of The matrix remains one of the great moments of cinematic science fiction will find a similarity with this posture. Artificial intelligence (AI) having won the war against humans, but no longer having access to solar energy due to a nuclear winter, it uses our bodies as a source of heat and electrical energy. So we live, motionless, in capsules aligned like electric transformers. But to keep us in subjection, AI makes our brains believe that we have a normal life. The illusion can only operate if, even unconsciously, we are certain that escape to freedom is possible. AI must therefore make this freedom a real possibility, while trying to curb it. But since the possibility exists – and this is the brilliant scenario of the trilogy – freedom can triumph.
It is therefore, for The matrix as with federalism, a dangerous but necessary balance. Benoît Pelletier knew it. Justin Trudeau doesn’t care.