MONTREAL -- While support for sovereignty is at a low point, one should never underestimate both its continued support and affiliated parties’ ability to bounce back like the Bloc Québécois did last year and affect efforts to unify Quebec and Canada such as I proposed in a CTV commentary on Nov. 24.

Case in point: on March 31, 2016, a symposium held at America’s Yale University entitled “Does Quebec Need a Written Constitution?” offered its participants one way to recognize Quebec’s place in Canada’s constitutional makeup. And its keynote speaker, former premier Jean Charest, stated “there are very solid rational arguments to be made on having a good written provincial constitution.”

Nevertheless, he warned that “any work done in regards to constitutional change requires that there be an alignment between the amending, the content and implementation” adding “the only way you could adopt a constitution in Quebec is to hold a referendum…and what will Daniel Turp (as a sovereignist) say? … ‘a referendum is about choice, we have to give them a choice…separation or the constitution.’”

Charest explained that it was that prospect that had led him to rule out adopting a written Quebec provincial constitution while premier, since he had campaigned so many times on a platform of “no referendums” on independence.

But while Charest’s logic is easy to follow, it still fails to take into account that the rest of Canada may come to insist on a binary referendum that includes the sovereignty option. Why?

At present, even the two federalist parties in the National Assembly (Charest’s own Quebec Liberals and the Coalition Avenir Quebec) are still pressing for a level of decentralization of Canada with which most non-Quebecers may not identify. So even if the rest of Canada were to entertain such redesigns to be accommodating, they may still want to be reassured that any centrifugal shift is not just creeping Quebec secessionism in disguise.

To offset that concern, perhaps Charest’s concern ought to be put aside and a full range of versions of a Quebec constitution, from Canada "as is" to autonomy to outright secession, should be placed on a ballot. Voters could support ranked choices until one option exceeds the required threshold of support, thereby revealing what the Quebec people really want.

Surely if the real end goal for Quebecers is to be sovereign, then having an independent state version on the ballot would offer that choice. Alternatively, if their first preference really is some sort of decentralization, at least the rest of the country will know where Quebec’s demands for new powers finally end.

Fortunately, all versions would address domestic issues where agreement is possible. For instance, it is hard to imagine that everyone would not agree with entrenching the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And the English-speaking population could redress the language situation by proposing a linguistic social contract be included as I outlined in a CTV opinion piece on Oct. 22.

A sovereignist version, once revealed, would likely become subject to international scrutiny that could impress upon its supporters to be responsible rather than just decrying, for political benefit, any provisions on minority rights that an in-Canada version might contain. To scapegoat this way could slow foreign recognition of their new state and spur a partition effort by the affected minorities.

If, on the other hand, it turns out that the sovereignist version fails to win enough support, those provisions that do enjoy a consensus between the various versions could still wind up being included within the winning in-Canada provincial constitution.

Of course, fitting the new document into the overall Canadian constitutional order will still be subject to negotiations between Quebec and the other governments of Canada in accordance with the federal amending formula. But if the majority-supported version is acceptable to the rest of the country with Quebec as a part of Canada, then the general Canadian constitutional structure will contain several provisions with which even Quebec nationalists and sovereignists can identify, thereby enhancing its legitimacy in Quebec.

At a minimum, this whole process could offer an easier mechanism than the previous failed efforts of the 1980s and 90s to respect and recognize Quebec’s distinct identity through interpretive clauses with sweeping statements in the federal constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

For once all of Canada’s governments will be on the same page in terms of the appropriate vehicle through which to move forward. And in so doing, all Canadians will be able to finally bring final closure to that long-asked question: what does Quebec want?

- Richard Walsh Smith is a contributing author to “English Canada Speaks Out”