Canadian Government Executive - Volume 24 - Issue 03

May/June 2018 // Canadian Government Executive / 19 Québec, June 1, 2017. The Premier of Québec, Philippe Couillard, has unveiled the first-ever Policy on Québec Affirmation and Canadian relations entitled “Quebecers, our way of being Canadian”. Photo: CNW Group/Cabinet du premier ministre. Policy dialogue. This includes outreach activities that broadcast Québec’s history and identi- ty throughout Canada, exchange programs to create ties between individual Quebec- ers and Canadians, research grants to pro- mote scholarship on the Québec project, and promotion of the francophone space within and outside Canada. Fifth, Québec would break down the ta- boo around constitutional negotiations on the future of Canada by building a basis for cooperation. A Québec-led, non-consti- tutional, community-based dialogue that emphasizes a diverse, tolerant Canada, would prepare the way for constitutional recognition of Québec’s identity and the tools needed to protect its specificity. Finally, Québec would seek to have its distinctiveness recognized and respected on an ongoing basis through the accep- tance of asymmetrical arrangements with- in the federation. It would retain its fiscal autonomy and fair share of federal expen- ditures with opting-in provisions built into joint arrangements. Asymmetrical arrange- ments would be the accepted approach to intergovernmental negotiations and agree- ments, thus reflecting provincial equality, autonomy and collective aspirations. The initial dialogue is not constitutional but civil, so it does not risk peeling the bandage off the old constitutional wounds. Quebec is reaching out to the rest of Can- ada at a time when support for indepen- dence has waned, and a commitment to reconciliation and collective rights has gained strength. However, this dialogue and ambitious project of engagement with Canada is not without peril. The dialogue is predicated upon the rest of Canada responding in an equally open and sincere manner. Canada must recipro- cate by accepting the Québec way of be- ing Canadian and demonstrating a firm commitment to inclusivity, diversity and respect. To date, the response from other Canadian governments has been tepid at best and, in the case of the federal govern- ment, arrogantly dismissive. As the son of the Prime Minister who oversaw the en- trenchment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the isolation of Québec in 1982, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has refused to engage in any discussions that presage the opening of the constitution, preferring instead to focus on economic priorities. Under Trudeau’s watch the dia- logue may become a soliloquy. A dialogue involves give and take. This may be how the other governments in Canada approach Québec’s invitation. • Saskatchewan Premier Wall commented that his province would want to discuss other constitutional matters, including an equalization formula that sees his province as a contributor and – he did not add explicitly – Quebec as a recipient. • In the heat of the pipeline dispute, the Alberta Premier has stated that Canada is in a constitutional crisis. She may use this opportunity to pursue economic protections. • In an unpredictable election year, On- tario may demand changes to the equal- ization formula and transfer payments that would allow it to tame its deficit and debt gorilla. • In the wake of the federal government’s unilateral imposition of a moratorium on offshore oil and gas drilling in Arctic waters, the territories may push for more control over their economic futures and, although provincehood seems unlikely, for some constitutional protections. Québec may find that its entreaty to talk is met with a list of provincial and terri- torial grievances that only grows through dialogue. One danger of any engagement project is that expectations spiral out of control or that they collide and become irrecon- cilable. The affirmation policy speaks of a nation-to-nation relationship with Indig- enous peoples, rightly noting Québec ad- vances in signing treaties and land claims recognizing the right to self-government. And yet, the policy identifies northern lands as “the territory of Québec” and the Cree and Inuit as stakeholders in their development. Indigenous leaders may dispute this characterization. Québec and Indigenous governments’ expectations re- garding roles and responsibilities for these lands may be irreconcilable, especially as environmental and resource rent-seeking claims collide. Other conflicts may involve borders, southern lands, and recognition of culture and language. Similarly, other ethnic, cultural and re- ligious communities may challenge Qué- bec’s definition of being Canadian and argue for the same principles of inclu- sion, respect and tolerance to be applied to their way of being Quebecers. As hap- pened in the old constitutional wars, civil society groups including women’s groups may argue for explicit recognition of their rights and status even at the expense of the Quebec identity articulated as the core of the interculturalism policy. The dialogue, whether civil or constitutional, will require a maestro to attain harmony and avoid discord. Asymmetry is at the heart of the Québec dialogue. Asymmetry is the oil that keeps confederation running well. However, if asymmetry is applied in intergovernmen- tal arrangements in a way that favours or appears to favour one region dispro- portionately or at the expense of others, then it may become the agent that bogs the Canadian engine. In contrast, if the dominant approach to asymmetry in in- tergovernmental relations in Canada is to create framework agreements that estab- lish jointly-defined and shared principles within which provincial difference is ac- commodated, then the common project of Canada may run more smoothly in future. Québec has begun a dialogue. Anthony Giddens has reminded us that dialogue keeps people together, removing the need for exit or violence. The rest of Canada will need to reciprocate if it is to avoid the consequences of another humiliation for Québec. K athy L. B rock is Professor, Queen’s School of Policy Studies.