‘DON’T GO THERE!’
Why does it feel like we’ve seen this film before? As the soundtrack builds the tension, an earnest protagonist, on a quest, is about to enter a deserted mansion. All the audience can do is to scream, “DON’T GO THERE!”
It is hard to imagine that anything useful can come of the “affirmation policy” Premier Philippe Couillard published this week. While it reads as a sincere and conciliatory document, affirming a commitment to federalism as well as to Quebec’s nationhood, it indicates its goal is to open a discussion with other Canadians, leading to eventual constitutional changes. The document acknowledges that many of Quebec’s concerns have already been accommodated with political measures; however, it seeks to have these enshrined in a Constitution to which Quebec would give its accord.
In a perfect world, perhaps this would happen, and Quebec would, at last, approve the Constitution with enthusiasm. The lack of Quebec buy-in remains a political sore point. However if Meech Lake taught us anything, it’s that the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
Once we stumble into constitutional discussions, tensions rise, questions of principle are pushed to the forefront, scabs are picked, discussions broaden as everyone puts their own issues on the table, and unintended consequences are apt to follow. Actually, maybe the best analogy is not a clichéd horror movie, but The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was right to quickly pour cold water on the prospect of reopening the Constitution any time soon. Couillard’s timing seems particularly inopportune. The Kinder Morgan pipeline has been put into question by the political situation in British Columbia, something that might lead to more concerted efforts to build Energy East, which is highly unpopular in Quebec. If that happens, tensions will increase between Albertans and Quebecers; not the best timing for Quebec to be seeking understanding.
What is really going on here, anyway? Is this just an attempt to move the Quebec Liberals toward a more nationalist stance, to defend against the rise of the Coalition Avenir Québec? Is it an attempt to divert attention from the government’s shortcomings on things like health care? It may be both of those things, but it also appears to have been the product of considerable reflection and is consistent with Couillard’s past statements on Quebec’s place in Canada.
Canada’s approaching 150th anniversary is presented in the paper as a fitting occasion for building bridges and relaunching a national discussion. But this is not a birthday gift Canada needed. Indeed, in all senses, c’est pas un cadeau.