Miller’s Musings MAC hears why constitutional accord unlikely

At their annual meeting, held this year in Montreal on June 6, members of the Mining Association of Canada had a rare opportunity to hear an articulate analysis of the nation’s constitutional situation from a Quebec viewpoint. Lise Bissonnette, publisher of Le Devoir and a journalist of broad experience both inside Quebec and elsewhere, spoke at a luncheon about the outlook for a new constitutional accord in the next two years.

According to Bissonnette, the current debate is about strategy, not substance. “The options have been discussed, and the intellectual excitement is gone,” she said. The findings of the Allaire Commission and the Belanger-Campeau Commission, as well as the legislation recently tabled in the National Assembly, “are not to be taken literally.” Rather, they are strategic in nature, intended to shock the rest of Canada into making some proposals.

Bissonnette feels that chances of an accord are slim, for several reasons. The divisions in the country are so deep that “a miracle would be required.” The two visions of the country are contradictory. For Quebec, the political entity of Canada is firmly based in the duality of two founding nations. Elsewhere, the concept of multiculturalism has become dominant. Duality is not accepted, particularly in the West.

Moreover, there will be a strong reaction in British Columbia against the entrenchment of aboriginal rights, whereas the provinces with New Democratic governments (and there may well be three of them by then) will want it.

Bissonnette cited other obstacles to an accord. Like Quebec, business groups seem to favor a decentralized federation, but “the intelligentsia and the NDP want more centralism,” including inviting the federal government to take some direct responsibility for education. The weak popularity of the federal government is another problem for negotiations.

While Quebec likes Joe Clark, “he is not a miracle worker, and he has his own problems with the Reform Party in the West,” said Bissonnette. Canadians, distrusting their politicians, may insist that a constituent assembly be formed to negotiate a new constitution. This would only delay matters and would actually impede an accord because the process would “degenerate into a battle of special interests.”

What does Quebec want? Quebec wants “control of its own destiny,” Bissonnette said. It does not want the federal government in every corner of life. It is frustrated and feels “pushed out of Canada” because its calls for “equal partnership” have been thwarted in constitutional conferences since 1960.

The speaker agreed with a questioner that separation would create economic problems, at least in the short term. Also the process of negotiating separation would be difficult and would leave scars.

For fear of these results, Quebecers might reject separation at the 1992 referendum, even if real constitutional reform is not achieved. But “you can’t build a country on fear,” she said, and a vote for Canada in the absence of reform would not settle anything. The question would only come up again.

I listened to this talk with growing pessimism. If Bissonnette is correct, Canadians are in for a period of gut-wrenching change. Either we will find a way to accommodate the aspirations of Quebec, as well those of the other legitimate interests in our society, or we will preside over the dismemberment of the Canada we have known.

Both futures will be difficult. Which will we choose?