March 2001
Quebec’s Choice... Dull but Valuable
by Gordon Gibson
The January 2001 report of the Special Committee of the Quebec Liberal Party on the Political and Constitutional Future of Quebec Society1 is an important document in spite of itself. The bland title, Quebec’s Choice: Affirmation, Autonomy and Leadership gives the first intimation of the "all things to all people" approach. The prose has the impact of sleeping pills transformed into print. No one will carry this pamphlet to the barricades, and this is no doubt exactly what its authors intended.
The work is modest in its aspirations, as was Jean Charest, the Liberal leader, who, a few days after the document was introduced, noted that now was not really the time to be discussing such things. Prime Minster Chretien showed pretty clearly what he thought of this initiative of his provincial cousins. "Well, they’re not government yet," said he.
Charest’s reserve aside, the report clearly serves a political purpose. If any Quebecker wants to know the constitutional stance of the Liberal Party of Quebec, they can be handed a copy. The reader can find therein some support for almost any non-separatist version of the country, but no positions are clear enough to criticize.
But it is possible to crack some of the code in which the document has been written to forecast where the authors (led by Benoit Pelletier, MNA and former respected constitutional professor at the University of Ottawa, who chaired the committee) would really like to go.
As a first observation—and this is very consistent with Mr. Charest’s stance in the last provincial election—the party believes the Quebec state has become too "invasive." Quebec is perhaps doomed to be more collectivist than other parts of Canada in defence of its threatened language, but a lesser role for the state is a part of the background music here. For example, "... free enterprise and its development are a natural extension of individual freedom."
There is explicit recognition not just of the challenges of globalization, but of the inevitability thereof, and indeed, of the rewards. Continued association with Canada is seen as an advantage in making the necessary adjustments—a position diametrically opposite to that of the Parti Quebecois.
There is a good deal of the usual cant in the report about aboriginal rights and the francophone minorities outside of Quebec. No useful new ground is broken on the former, and the latter topic has little salience except for the minorities concerned.
We get into the meat in the report’s section II: "Affirmation and Recognitions of Quebec’s Particular Identity."
Early on a useful point is made which more Canadians should consider. That is the suggestion, which I first heard from Claude Ryan, that Quebec’s desire to form a distinct society within Canada is no different from Canada’s wish to remain distinct from the United States. English Canadians support the cultural exemptions embedded in NAFTA. Why do they oppose the same desires of Quebeckers within Canada? (This is my formulation; the report is more diplomatic.)
The report then goes down the well-trodden and ultimately dead-end "distinct society" path, though using a different word: "specificity." It states that "Recognition of Quebec’s specificity might imply the adoption of a provision for the interpretation of the whole Constitution, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in view of the fundamental role of Quebec’s linguistic, cultural, institutional and social specificity in Canada."
After all (even though the report does not make this point) why should fewer than one million aboriginals have the benefit (or curse) of exactly such provisions in the Constitution (Sections 24 and 35) if they are to be denied to seven million Quebeckers? Why indeed? (The answer is that Sections 24 and 35 were terrible mistakes, compounding the grievous error of the racist Section 91(24), singling out Indians by race in 1867, but that is another essay.)
Alas, "distinct society" is just not on, politically. It would be far wiser for a final report (for this one is clearly characterized as "preliminary") to advance ideas that would allow each province all of the necessary tools of decentralization to create the fact of difference rather than this preoccupation with a Quebec- specific symbol which sticks in the national craw. It is often much easier to go around a wall than through one.
The report then turns to the practical business of making the Canadian federation work. It emphasizes the need for cooperation among the provinces. A federation is made up of (at least) two orders of government, and it is normal that each order should have a view of its place. Alas, in Canada, only the federal government is sufficiently organized to project such a view, which naturally favours centralism. It is long past time for the provinces to agree on and articulate their view of the federation, for without a counterforce there is no balance.
The report thus argues for a "Council of the Federation"—an interprovincial body much like the "Federal Council" proposed since the days of the Ryan "Beige Paper" and outlined in my 1995 Fraser Institute book Thirty Million Musketeers. As the report later notes, the Council could also "be given a mandate to define pan-Canadian standards and objectives related to the consolidation of the Union, play a harmonizing and integrative role, and even become a leading decision making body."
Alas again, the report at this point wades into the swamps of "duality" and "asymmetry," proven political losers that simply will not work in a land deeply committed to ideas of equality. Again, as above, my advice is, "go for the results and forget the symbols."
On the matter of "Balance within the Federation" the report proposes—with a charming diffidence—the possible conversion of the Senate into a sort of House of the Provinces advocated by British Columbia in 1979. It is a respectable option, though this author prefers the abolition of the Senate with future reliance on a Federal Council.
The proposals for choosing future Supreme Court judges are surprisingly timid. The provinces should have a co-equal voice with the central government in the staffing of the court adjudicating their constitutional differences.
The proposals on a constitutional right-of-veto recognize that this cannot be a Quebec-only right. The same generosity of view should be adopted in the "specificity" area. The general approach of regional vetos is constructive if one believes that Canada is, to use business terms, more of a "joint venture" than a "merger." Full "opting out" is advocated in the matter of financing.
The report applauds equalization which, of course, is in Quebec’s interest. The rest of us are going to have to take a hard look at equalization one day and ask if the formula needs to be adjusted. The subsidy of the old and the young in their accidental place of residence is one thing. Disincentive to mobility by working age people is another. It is a large question, but certainly not for Quebec alone.
In other areas of the federal "spending power" the report is clear—federal expenditures in areas of provincial competence should be subject to provincial control.
Further powers in immigration are called for, as well as "firm control" in culture, health, social affairs, income security, energy, forests, mines, tourism, public housing, and recreation." This is a list that might make Ottawa choke, but it is consistent with the existing Constitution properly read.
The report concurs with the sound maxim that those who spend money should (with the exception of equalization) be also responsible for raising it.2 "As a general rule, the distribution of tax and financial resources should correspond closely to the distribution of constitutional powers."
Following a couple of (well deserved) shots at the Social Union agreement and the way in which Ottawa attempts to impose its views with the Canada Health Act, the report concludes with a summary that reiterates the value of Quebec in Canada, and of cooperation with other provinces.
The paper is not a "fun" read, but it is of great value. The opportunity here, if the other provinces are wise, is to establish a dialogue between the other provincial governments of Canada and the federalist party in Quebec.
Such a dialogue, if seen to be established, would do two important things. First, it would heighten the respectability and electability of Quebec’s federalist party and give hope to that vast majority of Quebeckers who want neither separation nor the status quo, but rather a new federalism.
Second, it would finally give an impetus to the provincial level of government in Canada to develop its own vision of the federation—something less centralist than the only (Ottawa) vision currently in the field. We need both these things.
Notes
1Available on the internet at www.plq.org.
2The fact that this is not the general rule in federations around the world does not mean that the principle is wrong. Rather, this fact illustrates the love of governments, especially central governments, for power and influence.
info@fraserinstitute.ca
4th Floor, 1770 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6J 3G7
Tel: (604) 688-0221 Fax: (604) 688-8539 Book Orders: 1-800-665-3558 ext. 580
You can contact us at the above email address for any comments or information requests. Please report any dead links or technical problems.