By Stéphane Dion

November 2, 2026

The controversy over domestic politics that erupted at the Canada–European Union Summit held in Montreal last week brought the Gérin-Lajoie Doctrine on the international role of the Quebec government into the spotlight.

The doctrine holds that Quebec has the right to extend its constitutional jurisdictions to the international stage.

Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, the new premier of Quebec and leader of the Parti Québécois, brought up this doctrine to sharply criticize Prime Minister Mark Carney for not letting him give an official speech during the summit.

It was in a speech delivered on April 12, 1965, before members of the Montréal Consular Corps that Paul Gérin-Lajoie, then Quebec’s Minister of Education, first articulated what would become known as his doctrine.

It should be said from the outset that Gérin-Lajoie was an extraordinary figure. He founded Quebec’s Ministry of Education and subsequently helped develop Canada’s international assistance policy. He embodied the remarkable complementarity of Quebec and Canadian identities.

His doctrine, however, has never been recognized by the federal government or the courts. It has no legal status, even though successive Quebec governments, across the political spectrum, have invoked it since 1965.

When Prime Minister Jean Chrétien appointed me Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs—in practice, Minister responsible for Canadian Unity—in 1996, I stated that I would be prepared to work toward the doctrine’s recognition, provided we could agree on its scope.

If the doctrine is understood to mean that the Government of Quebec has a presence on the international stage in areas falling within its jurisdiction, in a spirit of cooperation with the foreign policy of the Government of Canada, then this is entirely feasible, and I can speak from experience.

From 2017 to 2025, in my capacity as the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy to Europe, I enjoyed and observed excellent and productive relations with Quebec’s delegates posted in the European Union: in Germany, Italy, Belgium-UE, and France. In particular, the triangular relationship between Quebec, France and Canada operated in a spirit of full cooperation.

Of course, one might assume that things would have been very different had the Quebec government of the day been committed to secession. But that was not the case. Quebec’s delegations worked to help Quebec businesses and artists succeed in Europe, while Canadian embassies were pursuing the same objectives. Our efforts complemented one another very well.

However, if the Gérin-Lajoie Doctrine were to mean that, on the international stage, the Government of Canada must withdraw or step aside in matters falling within provincial constitutional jurisdictions — which are considerable in our decentralized federation — then Canada would no longer have a foreign policy.

That would be an excessive interpretation of the doctrine. In his famous 1965 speech, Gérin-Lajoie himself acknowledged the federal government’s “undisputed right to deal with foreign powers” (my translation).

We therefore need to agree on the doctrine’s scope.

Let us consider the specific case raised at the Canada–EU Summit. Dissatisfied with not having been invited to deliver an official address at the summit, Premier St-Pierre Plamondon lodged a vigorous protest, both verbally and in a letter to the European Union’s co-presidents. He boycotted the summit and sent only a non-elected representative.

Certainly, Canada’s prime minister must work with the premier elected by the people of Quebec. But he must do so in the interests of the proper functioning of the federation, including Canada’s success on the international stage.

While Prime Minister Carney could have invited Quebec’s premier to deliver that official address, he chose not to. He exercised his judgment.

Does the Gérin-Lajoie Doctrine mean that, in circumstances such as these, Canada’s Prime Minister is obliged to give the floor to Quebec’s premier? While we are at it, does the doctrine require that the Government of Quebec negotiate another partnership with the Europeans in areas falling within its jurisdiction?

These are examples of an interpretation whose boundaries are vague and unrealistic, one that has no legal foundation and is inconsistent with sound federalist practice. In a federation, constituent governments seek to play their role on the international stage in ways that are compatible with the country’s ability to speak with one voice—a necessary condition for an effective foreign policy.

In a decentralized federation such as Canada, the federal government cannot, simply by signing a treaty or international agreement, commit the provinces to implementing policies in areas of their jurisdiction that they do not support. This is why it is in the Government of Canada’s interest to consult and involve the provinces thoroughly at the various stages of international negotiations.

Canada must speak with one voice at the negotiating table, but it must do so to secure outcomes that can be implemented by all the federation’s constitutional partners.

This division of responsibilities has served us well. Few countries have succeeded in negotiating as many international agreements across such a wide range of fields. When G7 leaders meet, Canada is the only member that has a free trade agreement with every other member.

In the case of the Canada–EU Summit, why did Prime Minister Carney not invite Premier St-Pierre Plamondon to deliver an official address? I cannot speak to Mr. Carney’s thinking, but I would suggest one possible explanation.

The stakes at the summit were of critical importance. Canada and the European Union feel an unprecedented need to draw much closer to one another across all areas of cooperation. To succeed, each side was determined to speak with one voice.

The representatives of the European delegation came to Montreal as Europeans. Of course, they were German, French, Italian, Lithuanian and so on, but they spoke only in their capacity as Europeans. They left their disagreements, even their differences of nuance, back in Europe. They spoke on behalf of the European Union as a whole.

The European Union regards this approach as essential to its success: its representatives speak and act on behalf of the Union, not their individual countries. When a Canada–EU summit is held in Brussels, Belgium’s Prime Minister is not invited to speak, not even to deliver a ceremonial welcome. It must be clear that the European Union, rather than Belgium, is the host.

Mr. Carney undoubtedly wanted Canada to follow the same approach of bilateral rather than multilateral interlocution and unified messaging.

Mr. St-Pierre Plamondon, by contrast, has consistently made it clear that he wishes to speak only for Quebec’s interests. And, to give him his due, as a substantive political figure, he would not have limited himself to a ceremonial address.

He will have ample opportunities to present his vision for Quebec, but Mr. Carney presumably judged that this was not the right occasion.

Would Mr. Carney have made a different decision had his Quebec counterpart been Ms. Fréchette or Mr. Milliard? We will never know. But one might reasonably think that it would help if Quebec’s current premier were committed to Quebec’s success within a united Canada.

Certainly, Canada’s prime minister must work with the premier elected by the people of Quebec. But he must do so in the interests of the proper functioning of the federation, including Canada’s success on the international stage. This frequently requires Canada to speak with one voice.

In keeping with these principles, we could reach an understanding on the Gérin-Lajoie Doctrine that would promote harmony between the international policy of the Government of Quebec and the foreign policy of the Government of Canada.

Stéphane Dion is currently serving as Diplomat-in-Residence, Faculty of Arts and Science, at l’Université de Montréal.