Is Canada witnessing a new version of Sovereignty-Association in Quebec?

On the eve of what will likely be the least surprising outcome in Quebec's provincial election tomorrow night, as signalled in the latest polling data, Premier Francois Legault's Coalition Avenir Quebec (CAQ) is poised to capture an even larger second majority mandate.

While the outcome may not be in doubt, what Legault's victory will mean for the rest of Canada remains very much an open question.

One only has to examine the record of his first term, along with recent statements he has made during the campaign trail, to realize that he intends to continue governing with a sovereigntist-bent, aiming to redefine Quebec’s place within Confederation, and worse, is actually being empowered by our tepid federal leaders. In other words, Canada may be inching towards a new iteration of “Sovereignty-Association” in Quebec without even realizing it.

CAQ is a party comprised of both federalists and sovereigntists, which structurally already denotes a haziness in what it stands for when confronting the idea of a sovereign Quebec. Legault himself was once a declared sovereigntist as a member of the Parti Quebecois (PQ), and his approach to governing after one term has not necessarily dissuaded those who may still be suspect of him harbouring a sovereigntist agenda.

Probably the most reported events of his first term of office, aside from the pandemic, have been the passages of Bill 21 and Bill 96. To briefly summarize, Bill 21 is a secularist law that bans all public servants (government employees, first responders, educators, etc.) from wearing any religious symbols, whereas Bill 96 attempts to strengthen the prevalence of the French language by putting further limits on the use of English and other languages in schools, businesses, hospitals, etc., while demanding that newcomers learn French within six months upon arrival. There is also a search and seizure aspect on “reasonable grounds” that is deeply troubling with Bill 96.

While both bills are simply viewed as discriminatory by the rest of Canada, this is not the case in Quebec, where these measures remain popular and are seen to be culturally appropriate and protective, underscoring the very real dichotomy within the pan-Canadian landscape, reflective of a time when the division between English and French was once referred to as the “two solitudes.”

To a point, there is an appreciation that the French language and culture has always been under constant pressure within an expansive North American context, and this was recently affirmed by census data from Statistics Canada, where not only is French in decline as a predominant language spoken at home, but correspondingly, languages spoken at home beyond French or English is on the rise.

Nonetheless, the purposeful disregard for religious and linguistic minorities rights enforced by Bill 21 and Bill 96 respectively, is hard to swallow for those peering in from outside the province. Yet, perhaps the most egregious component contained in Bill 96 is the legislative assertion that Quebec can unilaterally amend the Canadian Constitution, in declaring itself a “nation” and French as its only official language.

On matters of language, a generous reading of the Constitution Act of 1982, Section 43 (b), would at least require majority approval in the House of Commons and Senate, along with the provincial legislature to amend it as proposed, though it is more likely to fall in the bailiwick of Section 41 (c), meaning all provinces must agree, which to date, under either scenario, has not happened. Reason being, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau absurdly and dangerously affirmed that Quebec can unilaterally amend the Canadian Constitution, without seemingly giving much thought to the ramifications of what specifically is being amended.

It may permit some to wonder if this were possible as Trudeau would have us believe, then why did our country have to go through the constitutional wrangling seen with the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, both of which attempted to embed an understanding of Quebec as a “distinct society,” as part of a broader package of constitutional reforms?

Furthermore, why would it not dawn on a Canadian Prime Minister to recognize the possible consequences of our Constitution anointing nationhood to a singular province - one which has had several flirtations with separation already? The blunt answer is because of Trudeau’s crass political pandering to his home province, instead of standing up for Canada's constitutional order.

Quebec being defined as a nation in purely sociological terms is completely defensible and respected, but to afford it a distinct recognition separate from the rest of the provinces, which in turn may compel laws and courts to provide (un)intended protections or special constitutional powers to enforce that distinctiveness, flies against the intention of our constitutional arrangement. Sadly, both the federal government and opposition parties have all incredulously allowed this blatant unconstitutionality to stand, clearing the runway for Legault's continued and unfettered nationalistic impulses.

Now on the cusp of obtaining a second term, Legault has revealed hints during this election campaign on what the province and country can expect for this next mandate.

First, let's examine his promise to cap immigration levels below 50,000 per year, for fear exceeding it would be, in his words, “suicidal.” Suicidal in what respect? One can only deduce this as being stated from a cultural standpoint.

If so, this conjures up the comments that former PQ Premier Jacques Parizeau uttered on the night he lost the 1995 Quebec Referendum, where he blamed the outcome on “money and the ethnic vote.”

It is an odious sentiment that has hung over the sovereigntist cause ever since, and Legault's comments do very little to detract from this indigestible feeling.

The other statement Legault made on the campaign trail was that despite saying he would not hold a referendum, he claimed sovereignty would be “viable,” believing it was a question of priorities, but is not “a principal concern of Quebecers at the moment.” At the moment? Perhaps suggesting it may become a priority at some point? As innocuous as these statements may seem on the surface, there is also a foreboding sense of an eventual reckoning for the country.

This was reminiscent of the 1976 Quebec election campaign, where Parti Quebecois (PQ) leader and avowed separatist Rene Levesque had put aside the pursuit of sovereignty, in favour of campaigning strictly on good governance, following on the heels of the deeply unpopular incumbent Liberal government led by Robert Bourassa. Levesque had suggested that the sovereignty issue, the raison d'etre of his party, might be explored some time down the road, but matters of governance were most critical. In turn, this exploitation of Bourassa's low approval ratings and Levesque's evasiveness on the sovereignty question resulted in a historic election victory for the PQ, and within that first mandate, Levesque had begun shifting the focus back to his sovereignty project.

For this analysis, it is finally worth reflecting on Levesque's eventual proposition to Quebecers within the ballot question of the 1980 Quebec Referendum:

The government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations;

This agreement would enable Quebec to acquire exclusive power to make laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad - in other words, sovereignty - and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency;

No change in political status resulting from these negotiations will be effected without approval by the people through another referendum; on these terms do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?

What Quebecers were asked to consider as a new arrangement forty-plus years ago, and had rejected at that time, is essentially now playing out in real-time without so much as a whimper from the federal government, let alone any pretense of a negotiation. That is to say, Legault has been drifting the province closer to Levesque's conception of Sovereignty-Association without resistance from any of the federal parties.

Bills 21 and 96 engendered pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, which did not exist at the time of the 1980 Quebec Referendum, and has since aided Legault to enshrine laws designed to align with “Quebec’s values,” less so in conformity with the Canadian Constitution. In essence, making laws to enforce the precept of Quebec nationhood, rather than as a province within the understood constitutional arrangement, echoing the spirit of the Sovereignty-Association proposition of 1980.

On that score, it may be easy for Legault to suggest that the province does not want a referendum, precisely because he is manifesting conditions which will either render a future referendum needless, or an ensuing referendum would merely serve to formalize the nation-building project he has already been crafting from the start of his premiership. Either way, so long as there continues to be a complicit federal government in Ottawa, Sovereignty-Association will likely become a reality long before most Canadians finally wake to it.