Federalism's failure
Andrew Cohen, Citizen Special
Published: Tuesday, March 27, 2007
When Jean Charest was elected premier of Quebec four years ago, many thought he would be the most federalist leader since Jean Lesage in the 1960s.
Like Mr. Lesage, who spent some 13 years in Ottawa as a parliamentarian and minister, Mr. Charest had begun his political career in Ottawa. He spoke idiomatic, unaccented English, learned from an Irish Quebec mother who had named him "John." In some 14 years in Ottawa, he held senior cabinet portfolios and was chosen leader of the Progressive Conservatives in 1995, the first francophone in the party's history.
He wanted to be Prime Minister of Canada.
His experience in Ottawa and his commitment to Canada were refreshing. He was not a nuanced, equivocal Canadian like other Quebecers who came to Ottawa as Mulroney Conservatives.
He was genuinely committed to this country, which was reflected in his spirited performance in the referendum campaign of 1995. His support for the country, like a child's love, was unconditional.
There have been those hopeless naifs who expected that Mr. Charest could carry that with him when he became Quebec premier in 2003. Of course, his election alone -- and the defeat of the Parti Quebecois -- would ensure there would be no sovereignty referendum during his term. And there wasn't.
But there was a hope -- foolish, now, really -- that Mr. Charest would change the channel between Ottawa and Quebec City. That he would ask less of Ottawa -- or, perhaps, nothing at all. That he would no longer be the pesky, untiring, demandeur.
Four years later, we learn anew that that is impossible for a premier of Quebec.
He simply cannot be a federalist, or thought of as federalist, in any way, shape or form. He can be a Canadian, one supposes, but only with caveats and conditions. One of the reasons that Mr. Charest and the Liberals appear to have been battered in Quebec -- the final result is still not clear at this writing -- is because they have been seen as too accommodating in a province where nationalism is the state religion.
As conciliatory blacks in the United States are accused of not being black enough, Mr. Charest was seen as not French enough. He was a vendu, his loyalty suspect among the pure laine crowd.
As long as the opposition was more nationalist than Mr. Charest, it could say he was "not demanding enough," which is exactly what it did.
The chorus was unrelenting. The irony here is the booty Mr. Charest brought home from a federal government happy to enrich him in the hope of improving its standing in the province.
It isn't just the billions in transfer payments that he won in the federal budget last week, with no strings attached, which allowed Mr. Charest to offer a tax cut while the province's roads crumble. It was as well the billions that Mr. Charest (and the other premiers) won for health care in 2004 from the Liberals, who were also happy to hand over money with no real conditions.
In international affairs, Mr. Charest was happy to make visits to New York and Paris, playing the strutting strongman that every premier of Quebec likes to be.
He was happy to open more foreign legations and to embrace a more muscular role in international affairs, neither of which bothered the somnolent federal government, unfazed about sharing its authority.
The coup de grace, of course, was winning a seat for Quebec in UNESCO, which sets a dangerous precedent.
That, of course, has been followed by demands for a voice in other international organizations where, we know, the bilingual representative of Canada could not possibly represent the singular, sovereign interests of Quebec.
And then, of course, there is the declaration of les Quebecois as a nation within Canada.
It is a resolution of Parliament, to be sure, but it strengthens Quebec's claim to its distinctiveness, its uniqueness, and, by extension, its need for more money, tax credits and constitutional powers to make itself a distinct society. All this Mr. Charest has won for Quebec.
As for Canada, it still does not have a real economic union and a national securities regulator, which Quebec resists or ignores, which would help build a greater sense of country.
If the Liberals survive yesterday's election with a minority government, the nationalist/secessionist opposition will force them to make more demands of Ottawa. To remain in office, they will.
And if they lose power to Mario Dumont and the ADQ, who believe in greater autonomy, stopping short of independence, it will show, once again, the failure of federalism in today's Quebec.
Andrew Cohen teaches journalism and international affairs at Carleton University. E-mail: [email protected]
© The Ottawa Citizen 2007
. We are tired of losing time, money and resources on something that will never happen, separation of Quebec. Like I said ADQ is attracting young couple with young family's that just want theirs kids to grow up in a better run province with money spent at the right places for the future of our kids...not ours..
