For many, this isn’t ‘our way of being Canadian’

Policy paper framing Quebec as a nation is problematic, Jack Jedwab says.

Dialogue between Quebecers and other Canadians is always welcome. Beyond simply celebrating the 150th anniversary of Canada, there is value in reflection and discussion about our national identity and where the country is headed.

Such dialogue should not be tied to any eventual change to Canada’s Constitution. Regrettably, though, that is what the government of Quebec effectively is proposing in its recently issued policy statement titled Quebecers, Our Way of Being Canadian.

It’s true that much has changed since the last attempt to amend the Constitution. Younger generations of Canadians haven’t lived through the divisive referendums or the tumultuous constitutional negotiations of the 1980s and ’90s. But they can surely read about them in history books or consult parents or friends.

It’s very unlikely that the younger generation will react differently than their parents and grandparents did to the revival of constitutional dialogue, especially given that it is constructed on a basis quite similar to earlier incarnations. Indeed, the Quebec government’s proposal for constitutional reform sets the bar even higher than did previous proposals, making its chances for success even smaller.

Some Quebec pundits have described the policy statement as a mere reminder of our society’s distinctiveness and a simple reiteration of Quebec’s minimal demands, such as its constitutional recognition as a nation. But the impact on Canada and all Canadians of such recognition would be very uncertain, to say the least.

Any formal and/or constitutional recognition of Quebec as a nation means redefining Canada as a European-style multinational federation, and not itself a nation. Certain Quebec intellectuals wrongly insist that this is merely stating

Relatively little public deliberation went into a key policy document.

the obvious. The terminology used by the policy’s drafters also gives credence to that idea, given that in its almost 200 pages, the document never refers to Canada as a nation. Aside from references to the Canadian federation, it uses such terms as the Canadian stage, the Canadian space, the Canadian political project, the Canadian platform and/or the Canadian framework.

The policy statement also calls on political dialogue to be structured on a nation-to-nation basis. Does that mean the proposed QuebecCanada dialogue is going to be held between the representatives of the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation? Proponents of the multinational federation sometimes refer to the rest of Canada as the “English-Canadian” nation.

The policy statement asserts that Englishspeaking Quebecers are part of the Quebec nation. But many anglophone Quebecers will surely see themselves as part of the EnglishCanadian or the simply Canadian nation, regardless of the opinion of those intellectuals who crafted the multinational vision ultimately adopted by the government.

There are other practical challenges to this vision of Canada. Among them is where the francophones outside of Quebec fit into the multiple nation model. And what about 60-plus First Nations? Is each one going to be represented in the proposed nation-to-nation interaction, or will they have to be reduced into a single entity to accommodate the proponents of an idea that for much of our history was limited to two nations?

On several occasions, Quebec Premier Couillard has been a champion of inclusion. Yet in this case, relatively little public deliberation went into a key policy document that raises serious substantive and strategic problems. Far more consultation with Quebecers was needed before proposing a vision that would have a far greater impact on Canada than some might assume. Instead, the government chose to give the impression that this vision represents a consensus view among Quebec federalists.

As things stand, however, it’s difficult to escape the conclusion that despite the catchy title of the policy statement, for many Quebecers, this is simply not their way of being Canadian.