by Adam Radwanski - from the Globe and Mail
The obvious, instinctive reaction is to cheer for Jack Layton – if not nationally, then in the province where he’s most caught fire.
Quebeckers have long parked their votes with the Bloc Québécois – a party that by its nature has no interest in building a better country. Mr. Layton’s NDP, which has seemingly come out of nowhere to lead the Bloc in popular support, offers the prospect of more constructive representation and more thoughtful consideration of Quebec’s role within Canada.
But before getting out the pompoms, Mr. Layton’s message in recent days raises an uncomfortable question: Could the federalist party pose more of a threat to national unity than the sovereigntist one?
To create the “winning conditions” that sovereigntists have long been seeking, and that will be in demand if the Parti Québécois defeats Jean Charest’s Liberals in the next provincial election, requires a strong sense of grievance. The oui side came so close to victory in the 1995 referendum largely because of the perception that Quebec’s interests had been rejected by the rest of Canada, through the defeats of the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. But as of now, there’s nothing nearly so galvanizing in play.
For sovereigntists, it’s difficult to change that on their own. The PQ plans to try, with a stridently nationalist agenda aimed at provoking Ottawa. But Bloc MPs can make no serious claim to wanting to make federalism work, so it’s hard for them to help convey and spread a sense of disillusionment. Nor can they easily entice the federal government to launch into constitutional talks, of the sort that have previously ended in heartbreak, because no prime minister would be under any illusion that he or she could make them happy.
History suggests, however, that self-identified federalists are a different story. In the 1980s, Brian Mulroney built a coalition with soft nationalists, then tried to appease them. His reward was a chunk of his caucus breaking off to form the Bloc, a gesture with much more impact than anything the party they formed could do today. Their revolt, along with the frustration of the federalist provincial government of the day, helped set in motion the near-miss in 1995.
Since then, federal governments have stepped more carefully. Jean Chrétien’s Liberals went nowhere near constitutional talks, and took the opposite tack by introducing the Clarity Act. (That they also created all kinds of bad will with the sponsorship program is a different matter.) Paul Martin was more ambiguous – making former Bloc MP Jean Lapierre his Quebec lieutenant, and embracing “asymmetrical federalism” in a way Mr. Chrétien didn’t. But after dabbling with soft nationalism – giving the Québécois a “nation within Canada” designation, and engaging in a flirtation with Mario Dumont’s Action Démocratique du Québec – Stephen Harper has shifted back a little closer to where Mr. Chrétien was.
It remains highly unlikely that Mr. Layton will lead the government after May 2, but seat gains in Quebec and elsewhere could give him a big hand in shaping it. So it bears noting that there are a few shades of Mr. Mulroney’s approach in what he’s doing to win over Quebec.
The NDP has long had a commitment to provincial autonomy for Quebec that seems at odds with its interventionist message in the rest of the country. But Mr. Layton isn’t just promising not to impose federal programs. He backs extending Bill 101, Quebec’s controversial language legislation, into federally regulated workplaces. He is non-committal on the Clarity Act. He doesn’t want to add more seats in the House of Commons for underrepresented provinces such as Ontario and Alberta, without also adding more seats for Quebec so that it remains overrepresented. Read more...
No comments:
Post a Comment