Justin Trudeau probably has a
death grip on the Party’s future. And his father and former national leader
Stephan Dion holds as lethal a grip on its greatest issue: How best to campaign
for Canada in Quebec?
Adventuresome Liberal leadership
candidates can be heartless about a dead long-gun registry or supply management
protections for a few thousand dairy farmers. But they mustn't question the
constitutional orthodoxy, political savvy, and masculine appeal of the Clarity
Act, 2000—Stephan Dion’s federalist straightjacket for any future Quebec threat
to the Canadian union.
The Clarity Act tells Quebecers
that Canada’s House of Commons must approve the ballot question and then accept
the results of a winning referendum before the Government of Canada would be
allowed to negotiate independence terms with Quebec. It determines how the federal government would
negotiate, and ensures all other parties to the Canadian Constitution are in on
the negotiations as well.
It was inspired, as well as
drafted, by constitutional lawyers, and it was launched by a federal government whose political
center of gravity had moved decisively to Ontario. It is resented in Quebec.
It tells Quebec how to play their game. It’s meant to avoid a mess
by promising to turn a mess into a nightmare.
To put it brutally: in
Canada’s Cold War between federalists and Quebec sovereignists, the Clarity
Act is a strike force of intercontinental ballistic missiles. It is better than
anything else—as long as it’s never used.
Thomas Mulcair and the New
Democrats have just proposed replacing it with a Unity Act. Under its terms,
the Quebec Government and the Federal Government could enter into secessionist negotiations if a simple majority of
Quebecers voted yes to a clear question.
It doesn’t codify, in advance,
how either government should act to mitigate the damage of a yes vote. It
leaves it to elected pragmatists—if Quebec’s leaders persist—to negotiate promptly
a way forward for two affluent and interdependent countries.
Stephane
Dion is damning: their bill is too focused on Quebec, is too
permissive, and it doesn’t adequately instruct the federal government on how to
negotiate. He signs off by saying that the NDP is “trying to please the
‘separatists’ at the expense of the rights of Quebeckers and of all Canadians.”
Justin
Trudeau attacked Mulcair’s “willingness to equivocate, his
willingness to be open to a 50%-plus-one vote on sovereignty, takes us back in
a direction that we don’t want to go, and it’s a very careful political
calculation by him to appease his strong nationalist base in Quebec.”
Questioning the motives and
backbone of other politicians has passed for intellectual rigor in Canada since
Justin’s father entered politics in the 60s.
It’s not jarring that his son
and acolyte would practice it now. It’s a stretch, however, to complain as well
that Mulcair wants to "take us back." The Liberals appear determined to stick with
the "tough guy" approach—the one they used back when they actually had power in Ottawa
and led the federalists in Quebec.
It’s too early to know
whether they are still smarter than everyone else or, as they are on many
issues, simply unwilling yet to try something new. Nevertheless, while the Bloc
Quebecois forced Mulcair to show his hand, the outcome may serve him well.
The NDP holds five times more
seats in Quebec (59 to 12) than the two other major federalist parties and, so,
has changed the mainstream’s federalist strategy. Now the Clarity Act is,
effectively, the approach of the Liberal Party, with its seven Quebec Members
of Parliament.
Mulcair’s position can unite
federalists in Quebec. It can be accepted by swing votes, the "soft
nationalists" who decide who wins. The Clarity Act never could do either.
The Clarity Act played nicely
with federalists in the rest of Canada who wanted a tough federalist response
and accepted the argument that Quebec separatists would cheat to win.
There are two problems today
with this approach.
First: English-speaking Canada
already has a strong Prime Minister. They know Harper isn’t loved. However,
he’s credible on national unity and he’s shown poise and sophistication in his
dealings with Quebec.
Second: it’s increasingly
awkward to demand that Quebecers decide between the status quo and a 19th-century sovereign Quebec.
The demand—implicit in the
Clarity Act—that a massive super majority of Quebec francophones must want to
severely disrupt their lives and risk economic free-fall to get the federal
government to negotiate independence is not fair or believable.
Canadians are all soft
nationalists now.
Both sides in another
referendum would want—whatever the final count and damn fool question—to
settle on mutually beneficial arrangements.
No Act of Parliament is
necessary to help Quebecers think clearly or to tell a competent federal government
how to do its job.
No comments:
Post a Comment