Part I - Le Québécois: A nation?

In the heat of the Liberal Leadership Race, on Nov. 27, 2006, members of Parliament voted on a motion introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Tories that would recognize “the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada”. The motion passed by a margin of 266 to 16. Was it the right decision?

I begin by asking, what was the purpose of this motion? Give more rights to Quebec? To have some other, unknown legal effect? Based on the government response, the answer is no, and I believe that this toothless resolution actually did a disservice to Quebeckers.

First, who qualifies as a ‘Quebecois’? Franco-Quebeckers? Do Anglophones count? What about immigrants? This issue wasn’t even discussed. I would assume that ‘Quebecois’ includes everyone, crossing ethnic and linguistic boundaries, but you know what they say about assumptions. As we do know in politics, precision is paramount and a motion of such magnitude that lacks thereof is dangerous. Another question also arises: what is a “nation”? This word has so many connotations, that it can lead a person into the depths of semantic confusion.

As reported by the CBC,
“A reporter from the Montreal Gazette, the largest English newspaper in Quebec, wanted to know whether her readers were Québécois too.
"Does it include every resident of Quebec regardless of which boat their ancestors came over on?" she asked.
[Lawrence Cannon, Canada’s de facto Deputy Prime Minister] replied: "No, it doesn't. It doesn't. Let's be clear on this.” [http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/27/chong-quit-061127.html]

This alludes to a more ethnic nationalism, does it not? Subsequent comments by the cabinet (and even by Cannon himself) suggest that the motion is aimed at civic nationalism, but this is just one example of how confusion distorted the whole debate.

The Prime Minister clearly stated that it was up to the province itself to define its status (and the Assemblée nationale has already done so). I agree with him on that. So, what changed? Was it the fact that the Bloc Quebecois had previously introduced a similar motion, and the PM just wanted to beat them in a petty political game? Most likely. But for a resolution that the government has admitted carries no legal weight, I find it tragic that we have to resort to playing games with Quebeckers.

If we are going to talk about Quebeckers and their place in Canada, we should have a substantive debate on the matter. We should talk about the issues. From my travels across the country, what Quebeckers (and French Canadians on a whole) want is a respect for their language, culture, and history, along with a commitment to preserve them. How does this motion further that goal? Simply put, it does not.

The question is not: To separate or not to separate? Average Quebeckers, may I be bold in suggesting, could care less about that question at the end of the day. They want to know if their children will grow up in a country where they won’t be embarrassed to speak their language; where they will have all services available in their maternal language; where their history and culture will be rigorously taught in our schools; where the government will take active measures to ensure that this is done.

Can you blame Quebeckers? Having been born and raised in a Franco-Ontarian community, do you know how many people I know with French last names who can’t speak French? Who know nothing about their history? It’s devastating, and it is exactly what Quebec legitimately wants to avoid.

The problem is that a simple parliamentary motion won’t help the situation. Why? Because Quebec, generally, has a lack of trust for the federal government. This is a historical problem, above all else.

After the Plains of Abraham in 1759, and the subsequent British Conquest of 1760, a complete negation of French language, culture, and history followed, which was entrenched in the Treaty of Paris of 1763. This did not begin to change until 1774, when Quebec was allowed, through much persistence, to preserve their culture and civil law system. Imagine: Between 1760 and 1774, Quebeckers were bluntly discriminated against because of culture, language, and religion.

In the early 20^th century, we have the conscription debate of WWII, when Quebec vehemently opposed Mackenzie King’s position, with a large majority voting against conscription in the1942 plebiscite (76%). Guess what? They were practically ignored, and a Mackenzie King went ahead with it irrespective of French Canada’s concerns (the same concerns that were brought up in the First World War conscription debate, which then Prime Minister Robert Borden and Minister of Defence Sam Hughes infamously ignored).

Then, we have the repatriation of the Constitution and the creation of a Charter of Rights, which came into force without Quebec’s assent. And might I add, that without the fight of Quebec and other provinces, Trudeau would have repatriated it without provincial consent at all (see Reference Re a Resolution to amend the Constitution [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753).

Hmmm…no wonder they distrust English Canada! The result of this distrust has been the adoption of an insular approach in order to guard against the demise of their threatened culture. If we, as Anglophones are honest with ourselves, could we honestly say that we would have acted differently if the situation were reversed?

Continued in Part II: Solutions