Dialogue? Or sovereignty sililoquy?

The Parti Quebecois, the frontrunner to win Quebec’s October election, has released its “Blue Book,” a 524-page plan for an independent Quebec, but there’s one chapter missing, and that’s the one on Indigenous relations.

PQ leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon pitched this as a sign of respect, with a draft of the missing chapter currently said to be in the hands of at least some Indigenous leaders in the province. The PQ says that’s because the party is seeking dialogue with Indigenous communities ahead of releasing that laggardly aspect of its plan.

Of course, without question, Indigenous leaders need to be consulted early and often, and that ought to come first and foremost. But to us, the PQ’s excuse seems more reminiscent of the proverbial dog that eats homework. By all means, prove us wrong, but we don’t think the party is exactly owed the benefit of the doubt on this one.

After all, when your whole party’s existence is based on separating from Canada, how could you not have an ongoing, frequently updated plan for navigating relations with Indigenous nations ready to go? After all, these territories make up a huge mass of the province you want to turn into a country. And what’s your plan for the scores of unsettled land grievances within these borders on top of it?

As a province, Quebec is content to throw one hand in the air and use the other to point to the feds, knowing full well Canada has no intentions of acting quickly on returning lands, preferring to chip away until nothing’s left. But a sovereign Quebec won’t have the luxury of passing the buck.

After all, we’re talking about a country-in-waiting whose biggest city is built on unceded Mohawk territory. How will this be resolved across yet more borders imposed by colonial powers?

Conversely, how will Quebec take responsibility for resolving the Seigneury of Sault St. Louis land grievance if it ever found itself claiming both sides of the Mercier Bridge?

Rather than wrestle with this problem, Quebec’s unspoken mantra has been “sovereignty for me, but not for thee,” and if the mysterious chapter changes things in that regard, we’ll be surprised.

At least the CAQ’s Bill 1, a constitution with no plan or purpose, is no more.

One thing so many government policies still miss, even in this age of reconciliation, and surely by design, is the paramount importance of choice.

Instead, too often, First Nations receive consultations in name only, “dialogues” that are really monologues, with Indigenous communities’ needs and wants only heeded when they happen to align with what the government wanted anyway.

Will the missing chapter of the Blue Book acknowledge Kahnawake’s right to stay in the current fold? Who knows. Of course, Canada’s not so great for First Nations either, but there are reasons for Kahnawake to prefer it, even if just to protect the community from being bullied for not putting a second colonial language above the revitalization of its own.

Besides, what happens when an unresolved land grievance is separated by a newly-imposed international border?

Even more doubtful still is that any vision for First Nations within the borders of a sovereign Quebec will provide any meaningful recognition of Indigenous sovereignty - a pledge to work toward a future for First Nations in which their rights to control their own territories, form their own alliances, or issue their own passports are acknowledged, let alone determine their own membership.

And it doesn’t escape us that this dialogue is being sought on the eve of an election. What happens after the PQ is sworn in?

Meanwhile, Alberta is putting on a next-level display of disrespect in its own pursuit of separation, where the push for sovereignty more resembles a tantrum than an aspiration.

Despite the entire province being treaty territory, Alberta apparently thinks it can take its barrels of oil and go home without so much as consulting First Nations there.

Even colonial courts nixed that approach, with a judge in Alberta ruling that Indigenous communities had to be consulted before a referendum question for separation could be put on the ballot.

So Alberta premier Danielle Smith decided they’d put a question about a question on the ballot instead, as if that makes any difference - it’s a meaningless exercise that just highlights the movement’s origins in white rage.

First Nations chiefs across Alberta are rightfully pissed, but Smith isn’t even pretending to hide her disdain for them.

She does not even concede ground when politely but firmly challenged by the premier of Manitoba, Wab Kinew, the first Indigenous premier in Canadian history, not to mention currently the most popular in the country.

Here in Quebec, we’ll have to wait and see what angle the frontrunner is coming from. But no matter what the Blue Book or any other election platform says, there is no nation-to-nation relationship without a recognition of First Nations’ inherent right to self-determination.

Marcus Bankuti, Managing Editor

Steve Bonspiel, Editor/Publisher