I will do a post-mortem on the Liberal Convention when I get back to L.A. Thurs or Friday. Having recovered from my flu bug, I am in Cambridge, MA for a few days doing research.
In the meantime, here’s more fall-out of the ill-advised recognition of the Quebecois as a nation:
Stelmach vows to fight for same rights as Quebec
KATHERINE HARDING
From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail
EDMONTON — Alberta’s premier-designate warned Ottawa yesterday that his wealthy, energy-rich province wants to be treated equally with all provinces, including Quebec.
“I’m going to fight for the same rights and privileges being assigned to this ‘nation within a nation,’ Ed Stelmach said, referring to the federal government’s recent declaration that “the Québécois” are a nation within Canada…
“Any action that elevates the status of one segment of Canadian society over another is completely wrong. There is a real appreciation in Canada that we don’t do nation building in this way.”
“What is unfortunate about this motion is the omission of any reference of first peoples. We should not be seen as peoples of a lesser status than others in Canada, including the Québécois.”
Update: Even Tory cabinet ministers are upset. Intergovernmental Affairs Minister Michael Chong has resigned from cabinet over the Quebecois/nation motion. The divisiveness continues…
“I believe in one nation undivided, called Canada,” said Chong.
While there are many in Quebec that will disagree with him, Gerard Kennedy has decided that he cannot in good conscience support Stephen Harper’s motion to recognize the Quebecois as a nation within Canada. Kennedy will hold a press conference tomorrow to explain his decision. This is a principled stand and, in my opinion, the right decision. The resolution as it stands does not define the key terms that are at stake — that is, what constitutes the Quebec nation. The resolution avoids the difficult questions by refering not to Quebec but to “the Quebecois”. But what constitutes “the Quebecois” (is it anyone resident within Quebec’s borders? only francophone Quebecers? if the intent is to recognize the francophone people, then say francophone people, thereby acknowledging the distinct contribution of francophones who live outside of Quebec). But most importantly, the resolution fails by not defining what it means by “nation” — does it mean civic nation? ethnic nation? sociological nation? It is essential that any resolution claiming “national” status of any sub-region or sub-group within Canada explain what that actually means. Moreover, the resolution promises nothing and delivers nothing. It simply raises Quebecers’ expectations and shows contempt for Quebecers desire for more autonomy.
There is little doubt that this is a difficult issue for everyone. Having spent my formative years in Quebec and been educated and worked there myself, I feel that I am, in part, a Quebecer. I have a strong sense of attachment to Quebec, and to Montreal in particular. Learning the Civil Code of Quebec as part of my education, attending sketching school in Quebec City, working in the Eastern Townships, living in Notre-Dame-de-Grace and the Plateau (which straddles the western anglo and eastern francophone halves of Montreal), proudly marching in Dominion Square in favour of the 1995 NO campaign (and casting my NO ballot at the local high school) — through all of this, I learned that Quebec is an amazing place, with so much to offer. But there as also a dark underbelly of unwritten codes — the old Quebec that rears its ugly head every so often. Not being “from Quebec” originally (and not having a Quebec name, unless I changed my name to Gregoire Moreau), I was also patently aware of the glass ceiling that comes by not being a “pure laine” Quebecer. All too common, even people born and raised in Quebec — as allophones — experience that same political barrier — not within politics itself but in their professional offices. A good friend of mine, a dyed-in-the-wool Montrealer if there ever was one, recently moved to Toronto because he, despite working for some of the best architects in Montreal, had reached that glass ceiling, unable to get the respect and responsibility that he had earned. This glass ceiling may well ensure that “pure laine” Quebecers retain important positions (understandable given the situation prior to the Quiet Revolution), but it holds Quebec back from achieving its true potential.
Through it all, I have always felt that Quebec a part of Canada, and that Canada was a part of Quebec. One people, with many different attributes, and many different regional identities, of which Quebec is surely the most distinct. Those leading the effort to recognize Quebec as a nation are right to build “national” status upon shared civil values. But those shared values mustn’t be built region-by-region, people-by-peope, but rather must be built together, in forging Canadian civil values — not as English and French people — but as something else, more than the sum of our parts. I have also come to understand that there is often a disconnect between the political rhetoric of Quebec’s politicians and the everyday feelings of its people. Quebecers, and francophone Quebecers in particular, are not so insecure that they need an empty declaration of who they are or are not — they know who they are, they know that their language, culture, and values are strong, distinct, and in no danger of perishing within a Canada that cherishes them so much. We dishonour and patronize Quebecers with an empty declaration that promises much, but delivers nothing. While others want a quick fix, to quickly sweep Quebec’s aspirations under the rug with a vapid declaration, Kennedy understands that Harper’s resolution (while better than the Liberal resolution), raises and dashes hopes in one fell swoop. It’s not the answer for Quebec or Canada.
Gerard Kennedy for leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. Has a ring to it, right about now. I haven’t been enthusiastic about Gerard for the past few months, mainly because of some of the MPs who supported him. As Calgary Grit told me, you can’t always choose your supporters. True enough. As of right now, Gerard Kennedy is the guy who most deserves to be the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. He deserves to win. If I was a delegate, I’d sure as Hell be voting for him. What he has done, here took guts, and character, and leadership – something the Liberal Party of Canada desperately needs. Canada, too. Gerard will be under tremendous pressure from the elites to reverse his position, or qualify it. I don’t think he will. On Sunday, I communicated with many of the senior people around him. They say he will not reverse his position, as others have done this week. Folks, this is a big, big development. One week from now, I think this guy just might be the new leader of the Liberal Party of Canada!
This is pretty big stuff. Kennedy’s chances of becoming the next Liberal leader — or at least of bumping off Stéphane Dion, with whom he was headed for a knife fight for third place — just improved considerably. He will be rolling out the names of prominent new supporters as early as Monday, as a direct result of this decision.
Trying to disfuse a Bloc Quebecois motion that stated simply: “That this House recognize(s) that Quebecers form a nation,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper today introduced a competing motion that would recognize Quebecers “as a nation within a united Canada”.
Update: the text is actually to “recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.” Importantly, the resolution does not state that Quebec (the political jurisdiction) forms a nation. But, still, the meaning of the expression is ambiguous. The first ambiguity is in the term “the Québécois”; do they mean everyone living in Quebec? or francophone Quebecers? (NB. Québécois in the past, at least outside of Quebec, has often been taken to mean “francophone Quebecers”) The second ambiguity is the term “nation”. Do they mean sociological nation? civic nation? ethnic nation? Are we to take “nation” to mean its English meaning (i.e. often synonymous with country)? or its French meaning (i.e. often synonymous with “people”)? It’s unclear, especially in light of the first ambiguity. If the intent is to recognize francophone Quebecers as an ethnic nation, I have no problem with that. If the intent is to recognize all Quebecers as a civic nation, I also don’t have a problem with that (although it’s not a particularly distinct declaration, since there are many regions within Canada that qualify as civic nations). So, the intent of the resolution needs much clarification.
I have just received a copy of a small essay entitled “Canada as a Country, Quebec as a Nation: Avoiding the Quagmire” by Professor Errol Mendes, Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa (and editor-in-chief of the National Journal of Constitutional Law). This is a follow-up to the Ignatieff/Apps/Quebec-is-a-Nation thingy. Take a look HERE (100kb PDF). Feel free to discuss…
(Please note this article is copyrighted and should not be redistributed without permission of the author)
Canada-in-Theory Versus Canada-in-Practice
By Gregory D. Morrow
One of the great fallacies of re-opening the constitution to recognize Quebec as a nation is the theory that Canada can finally be “finished” through constitutional reform.1 Like the aftermath of a break-up (which is apt given the rhetoric surrounding the Quebec question), it seems that some people have a need for “closure” — in Canada’s case, a tidy theoretical document that purports to represent what the country is. For the lawyers and academics pushing for constitutional recognition, Canada is what it is in theory. We are told that recognition of Quebec as a “nation”, devoid of any substantive changes in powers, responsibilities, or fiscal arrangements, will in and of itself “constitute” truth. This faith rests upon a theory of justice (articulated most clearly by John Rawls in his 1971 A Theory of Justice), that promises a just process will yield a just outcome — in this case, that constitutional recognition of a Quebec “nation” will satisfy those Quebecers who yearn for more autonomy, respect, etc.
Faith that the constitution will “complete us” (insert Tom Cruise/Jerry Maguire clip here) is misguided, because the constitution, as a theory of Canada, belies much of what Canada is in practice. I would argue that Quebecers would much rather be more autonomous vis-a-vis powers, responsibilities, and fiscal arrangements than receive empty declarations of truth written as constitutional theory. Truth as written in the constitution does not make it so in practice (calling Quebec a nation in theory doesn’t change what it is in practice — and as someone who lived and was educated in Quebec, I think there is little doubt that Quebec is distinct — nor does it achieve the autonomy that many Quebecers want).
In practice, Canada hasn’t lived up to what it purports to be in its constitution; this is not a indictment of Canada by any means, but rather, reveals the limitations of the theoretical declarations of truth encoded in any constitution. Simply because our constitution declares that Canada is a bilingual country, does that mean it is truth? If we declare the equality of rights and freedoms (even if we leave out a few in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms), is it truth? If we declare federal responsibility for eliminating regional disparities, does that make it so? If we articulate the division of powers between different levels of government, does that happen in practice? And the list goes on… In practice, Canada is not a bilingual country; in many regions it is English only, in others it is French only, in other communities, it is Italian, Portuguese, Hindi, Farsi, Cantonese, Mandarin, and so on. Likewise, Canadian citizens are not equal in practice. Women earn significantly less than men for the same work. Immigrants are denied full participation in Canadian society, despite coming to Canada with high hopes and higher skills. Canadians of First Nation, Inuit and Metis heritage continue to live a lower quality of life than other Canadians. Regional disparities are growing, not shrinking. The division of powers between different levels of government is not clear, and in many cases necessitates shared responsibility. And so, despite all of its great successes, Canada as it exists in practice differs considerably from as it exists in theory. And I would argue that our successes — our prosperity, generosity, social stability — come not from the declaration of constitutional truths, but in the everyday negotiations and compromises (not formally recognized) that accommodate differing viewpoints. Canadians are welcoming not because they wake up each morning reciting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or pledging faith in the Multiculturalism Act. We are welcoming because of informal civic understandings — respect for others and the civility to accommodate difference in the course of everyday life.
Instead of trafficking in constitutional theory, we need leaders today who recognize and address problems in Canada as they exist in practice. It speaks of our decadence when such semantic/symbolic debates as the Quebec-is-a-nation question take precedence over pressing social problems — child poverty, the loss of middle-class jobs, polarization between rich and poor, growing regional disparities, continuing environmental degradation, a chronic shortage of doctors and rising health costs, among many others. I would argue that addressing these problems collectively would do more for Quebec than empty declarations of constitutional theory.
I’ve long thought that Andrew Coyne is one of the best political writers in Canada. I may not always agree with him, and will happily debate him on those points of disagreement (such as his recent claim that there is no public policy reason to encourage start-up businesses), but he consistently makes well-argued points. On the issue of Quebec nationalism, he highlights Michael Ignatieff’s inconsistency in how nation is defined — something that I have also highlighted, HERE. As Coyne notes, in talking about proponents of the Quebec-is-a-nation:
“I mean they are confused between, or wilfully confuse, two entirely different concepts: the sociological definition, on the one hand, in which nationhood is defined by ethnicity or culture (including language), and the civic or political definition on the other, in which it is simply defined by a system of shared belief amongst its members. Proponents tend to use them interchangeably, often invoking the first’s definition in the second’s name, or the reverse, as the mood takes them.”
I prefer to think of the two different concepts as civic and ethnic (what Coyne calls sociological). But the point is the same — that ethnic and civic nationalism are confused in Ignatieff’s argument for why Quebec must be recognized as a nation. Coyne highlights this inconsistency, noting that Ignatieff “manages to switch back and forth between them three times in the same paragraph”:
“Quebeckers, moreover, have come to understand themselves as a nation (1), with a language, history, culture and territory that marks them out as a separate people (2). Quebec is a civic nation, not an ethnic nation (3). More than 5,000 nations are recognized as such (4) in the world, but there are fewer than 200 states at the United Nations.”
This is an interesting video recapping some of Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s thoughts on “Quebec as a nation”. I’ve made my case for “Why Recognizing Quebec as a Nation is Problematic”. While the Ignatieff Liberals would like us to believe that now that Trudeau is dead, so too are his ideals, but I find it hard to argue with the quotes found here.
Already there is confusion over what “Quebec is a nation” would mean should we go down that path. The argument goes like this: because “Quebec is a nation” it should have the right to be represented as “Team Quebec” for the 2008 World Hockey Championships. No, no, and no. As I’ve said here before, the only definition for which the province of Quebec could be considered a nation is based on civic nationalism. And if you define nation that way, you would have to consider many regions of the country nations (since there are many regions that have shared values) — that is, it won’t grant Quebec the unique status it wants. Civic nationalism may be the best way to build a nation-state, but it’s not particularly meaningful for sub-national political jurisdictions. And if you define nation by ethnic nationalism, i.e appeals to language and culture, then you could call ethnic francophone Quebecers a nation, but not the political entity of Quebec (since Quebec is a jurisdiction with many ethnic nations). This is just an illustration of what we can expect if Canada follows Michael Ignatieff’s desire to re-open the constitution to “recognize Quebec as a nation”.
