With a new electoral mandate, the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, is already eager to do battle with his Canadian counterpart on the issue of immigration.
Posted at 10:00 a.m.
Even though Quebec already has the main levers allowing it to choose its immigrants under a federal-provincial agreement dating from the time of the Bourassa government, Mr. Legault is not left out: “If Quebecers want the government of Quebec has more powers in immigration, there is no one who will be able to resist that”, declared the Prime Minister last week. We feel that for Mr. Legault, laws 21 and 96 only signaled the warming period. The game looks tough.
In the west of the country, the election of Danielle Smith as the new leader of the United Conservative Party (UCP) and de facto Premier of Alberta also announces a warm fall. The Sovereignty Act, one of Mr.me Smith, would give the Alberta Legislative Assembly the power to declare that the province would not enforce federal laws that it says infringe on provincial jurisdiction. In short, the act would give provincial legislators a right of veto over federal laws.
Tensions between the federal government and the provinces are inherent to Canadian federalism. The premiers cannot be blamed for defending provincial autonomy and demanding more generous federal transfers.
It’s fair game. In the case of Quebec, there is a broad Canadian consensus on the historic and unique role of the Quebec government in protecting the French language. Former minister Stéphane Dion once said that Bill 101 is a great Canadian law. He was right, and that is the strength of the Canadian model: a decentralized federalism that grants the provinces exclusive powers in key areas such as health, education and the management of natural resources.
A sovereignty de facto
But in the two cases that concern us, the Legault and Smith governments are taking us elsewhere. In short, what they are proposing is unidirectional federalism. The reasoning is simple and clear: get as close as possible to sovereignty without worrying about the validation of citizens and referendums. A sovereignty de facto compared to de jure.
By definition, the federal idea requires a certain reciprocity, a spirit of compromise. Above all, it requires the active participation of federated states in national affairs. It is difficult to claim to be a federalist and systematically refuse to take an interest in what is happening beyond our provincial borders. This is not only harmful for the unity of the country, it is an abdication of the political weight of Quebec and Alberta within the federal government. In this way, the role of federal MPs from these two provinces is somewhat marginalized.
The logic that the federal government “must” constantly acquiesce in more powers and resources in Quebec and Alberta must reach its reasonable limit.
It is not viable in the long term if the objective is to keep the country united. If it were to strip itself of all its relevance in the governance of Canada, what reason would the federal government have to exist? The asymmetry in a federal dynamic also has its limits: how to make the citizens of other provinces accept that at the federal level they would have less power over Quebecers and Albertans than they would have over them?
The idea is not to pretend that the federal government should turn a blind eye to the legitimate claims of the provinces and territories and pretend that all is well. It is obvious that he must show humility and ensure that the concerns of the Quebec and Alberta governments are heard and debated. But let us be vigilant: the logic of unidirectional federalism will sooner or later remove all legitimacy from the federal government in the governance of Canada. We must reject this new false federalism.