Once a month, The duty challenges history buffs to decipher a topical issue by comparing it to a historical event or character.

A centralizing wind is blowing across the Canadian federation. In the post-pandemic context, health is of particular concern. Proposals from federal parties for this exclusive provincial responsibility are increasing, pan-Canadian standards and programs are being examined and federal transfers remain largely inadequate.

Add to that a refusal to give Quebec more powers on immigration and Ottawa’s intention to challenge Quebec’s secularism and French language laws and regulate the use of the exemption clause. In short, the tension points are not missing. However, far from being resolved by the passage of time alone, the dysfunctions of Canadian federalism are deeply rooted in history.

The current context is reminiscent of another. The global economic crisis and the post-war period had laid the foundation for centralization efforts in Ottawa. In 1940, the federal Rowell-Sirois Commission recommended fiscal and social centralization in its report. Two years later, the provinces, including Quebec, agree to temporarily cede their area of ​​direct taxation to the federal government. Eventually, if Duplessis refused to renew this agreement after the war ended, all other provinces capitulated to the federal government’s desire to maintain its monopoly on direct taxes. What was supposed to be temporary became permanent.

From 1952, Québec led the struggle for provincial autonomy alone against a fiscally almost omnipotent federal government. This power imbalance puts the Quebec government in a bind. «Duplesis [paraît] powerless to stop Ottawa’s policy of centralization,” emphasize historians René Durocher and Michèle Jean.

A commission

It was in this context that the idea of ​​setting up a commission came to Prime Minister Duplessis’ office. It is mainly borne by the Chamber of Commerce of the time, which may come as a surprise today.

On February 12, 1953, the Royal Commission for Constitutional Affairs was created. The preamble to the law establishing what is known as the Tremblay Commission is imposing and laden. It proclaims that the Canadian Confederation is a pact between two peoples whose survival is closely linked to respect for the rights, privileges and freedoms of the provinces, particularly those of Quebec. He also condemned the federal invasion of key tax areas reserved for the provinces and the resulting centralization of powers seen as “incompatible with the federal and democratic system”, adding that they were “wrong”.[ssent] the application of the Federal Pact.

The mandate is far-reaching: to make recommendations “on the measures to be taken to protect the rights” of the State of Quebec and the administrations in its jurisdictions. In the fall, the commission will begin a series of public hearings across Quebec. Civil society mobilizes. In their report, the commissioners state that “perhaps never before has the profound thought of the province been expressed with so much breadth and force on such fundamental questions”.

The Tremblay Commission exerted influence even before the end of its work. It facilitates awareness within the community of the constitutional issues arising from the Ottawa-Quebec tensions. Managers, on the other hand, feel the pulse of public opinion. In this regard, the hearings revealed the public’s desire for the Quebec government to play a greater role in determining the collective life of French Canadians.

Duplessis now has the popular support and balance of power he needs to act unilaterally and prevail. Thus, in February 1954, he created the Quebec income tax. Thanks to the impetus emanating from the Commission, he succeeded in enforcing his tax lawsuit at the federal level. A victory that, a few years later, will be decisive for the realization of the Quiet Revolution.

A “hidden” but influential report

Income tax is practically the only thing Duplessis will get from the Tremblay Commission. The commissioners embrace wider and prove bolder than the Prime Minister expected. So much so that when he received the report in February 1956, he attempted to bury it. It’s the determination of the Dutytirelessly denouncing this blacklist that its contents are partially survived.

The report remains steeped in a traditional nationalism and a conservatism consistent with unionist politics. Some call it the “Bible of the French Canadians” or see it as the “Testament of an Era”. Despite everything, the commissioners, as if foreseeing the coming period of great upheaval, dared certain avant-garde proposals and laid the first milestones of progressive nationalism.

At the constitutional level, the Tremblay report corresponds to that of the Rowell-Sirois Commission. He advocates a real “federalization” of Canada and its institutions. In particular, a profound reorganization of tax areas in favor of federated entities, in full compliance with Canadian constitutional law and the spirit of “authentic federalism”. The report recommends reform of the Supreme Court, particularly the method of appointing judges, but also provincial representation on the Central Bank Board of Directors and the creation of a Provincial Advisory Board.

The authors believe that at the core of the constitutional imbroglio there is “a fundamental divergence in the interpretation of Canadian federalism”. We must beware of the “new federalism,” they warn, that unified and centralizing concept of the regime that translates concretely into interventions by the federal administration in areas that legally fall under the federal entities.

The commissioners conclude that the vast majority of Quebecers reject separatism and unitarianism, but “still declare themselves loyal to federalism”. Not just any, though: the one based on provincial autonomy, particularly that of Quebec as the national homeland and fundamental political environment of French Canada.

state and autonomy

Beyond federal-state relations, the commissioners are proposing reforms in Quebec. They recommend improving social services and the creation of various organizations, including a French Language Office, an Arts and Letters Council, and a Natural Resources Council. They also suggest that a new investigation specifically looks at the reorganization of the education system, a recommendation that five years later will see the establishment of the Parents’ Commission that will modernize Quebec’s education system.

Ultimately, the commissioners advocate expanding the role of the state of Quebec. Political frameworks that are the only ones for French Canadians, “their efforts of several generations [leur] secured possession. It is the product of its distinct social and cultural character and the instrument of its political autonomy. It must therefore be preserved at all costs, the authors tell us, and “it [faut] use it and learn to use it”.

This idea of ​​the growing and special role of the State of Quebec will be at the heart of the spirit of the Quiet Revolution. René Lévesque liked to describe our state as “the most powerful collective instrument”. When Duplessis wanted nothing to do with the Tremblay report, the Liberals took it as the basis for constitutional politics. Moreover, Georges-Émile Lapalme, leader of the PLQ in the 1950s, saw a connection there with his ideas. “It almost seems as if the Tremblay Commission, in writing their report, let in whole chunks of my speeches on this subject! he declared in 1956.

In May 1971, another Liberal leader, Robert Bourassa, stated: “The Tremblay Commission formulated the major orientations that should guide us in the quest for a new Canadian constitution. All federal-state relations from 1960 to 1970 consisted essentially in the implementation of these principles established by the Tremblay Commission. »

A job to keep going

Since the 1982 patriation which imposed a stricter and more restrictive constitution on Quebec, following the failure of the Meech and Charlottetown constitutional negotiations, the no votes in the 1992 referendum, the no votes in the 1980 and 1995 sovereignty referendums, he has The constitutional Standing still has become more complex.

In the face of such obstacles, the Quebec government cannot really do without a thorough reflection on the foundations of Canadian federalism and its development. In order to make Quebecers aware that, despite appearances, the Constitution has very concrete implications for their daily lives and collective aspirations, we need to be able to identify and address the constitutional issues. The autonomist path only has a future if it means the continuous demand for “authentic federalism”.

This demand should lead to a proactive, even creative, use of the State of Quebec and existing constitutional mechanisms. The most promising of these mechanisms is undoubtedly the one that will allow Quebec to adopt its own constitution. Eventually, as Jacques-Yvan Morin said, it would be possible to “reconnect with the silent revolution and its sources,” of which the Tremblay report undoubtedly belongs.

To suggest a text or make comments and suggestions, write to Dave Noël at dnoel@ledevoir.com.

To see in the video