News   Apr 26, 2024
 1.5K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 325     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
 882     0 

How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS !!

A

Are Be

Guest
How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS !!

How will Quebec react?
For the first time since the 1960s, the province will not be Ottawa's central preoccupation

By JOHN IBBITSON

UPDATED AT 12:53 PM EST &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp &nbsp Friday, Dec. 12, 2003

Advertisement

Today, for the first time since Lester Pearson brought the wise men to Ottawa, we have a government that is not all about Quebec.

The new prime minister is not a Quebecker (however much he likes to pretend he is), and in Ralph Goodale and Anne McLellan, we have two figures at the pinnacle of the cabinet hierarchy who are both anglophone and unilingual.

It is an extraordinary change, one that will influence the federation as significantly as any policy that Paul Martin might present. One of the more interesting political questions now facing us is how Quebeckers will react.

The ascension of Ms. McLellan as deputy prime minister and Mr. Goodale as finance minister are part of Mr. Martin's campaign to defuse the issue of Western alienation and strengthen the Liberal Party in that region.

Ms. McLellan grew up on a farm outside Truro, N.S., studied law at Dalhousie and at the University of London, and taught law at the University of Alberta. She is formidably intelligent, passionate about policy, an advocate on consensual decision-making (some critics say that's a nice way of saying she can never make up her mind) and a good friend, as well as a loyal supporter, of Mr. Martin.

Mr. Goodale grew up on a farm outside Regina, worked briefly as a lawyer and in insurance, and was at one time leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal Party, which may be the loneliest job in politics. He has an enviable reputation for probity, prefers policy over personality, comes across in public as pleasantly dull and is as loyal to Paul Martin as the Saskatchewan day is long.

Their personal and professional qualities, and their strong ties to the West, have earned them high office and Mr. Martin's trust. But neither has any extensive experience with Quebec and neither is bilingual. Nor are the people who were the most senior political advisers to Mr. Martin in the years when he formed the priorities and policies that, starting today, will dominate the federal government: David Herle, Terrie O'Leary, Scott Reid, Tim Murphy, Richard Mahoney, Brian Guest -- their names say it all.

And the prime minister is not a Quebecker. Granted, Paul Martin has lived much of his adult life in Quebec, and represents a Montreal riding. But he was born and raised in Windsor, and is anglophone whether he likes it or not.

That is a far cry from past governments. Consider: In 1990, the governor-general, the prime minister, the head of the public service and the chief justice of the Supreme Court were all francophone. Today, none of them are.

Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chrétien all had reason to fear that they could be the prime minister who lost Quebec.

Their principal weapon in containing Quebec nationalism was to give Quebeckers disproportionate influence within the federal government.

Quebec also greatly benefited from the federal government's largesse. Downtown Ottawa was ravaged by Pierre Trudeau's decision to move much of the federal public service to Hull. The equalization formula ensured that Quebec would always receive and never give. Economic-development grants, sponsorships for cultural festivals, naked pork-barrelling -- la belle province profited from it all.

The price of placating Quebec was high. A piddling air force maintenance contract that went to Montreal instead of Winnipeg helped give birth to the Reform Party. The national energy program enraged Alberta even as it placated Ontario and Quebec. Then even Ontario began to protest: David Peterson, Bob Rae and Mike Harris grew increasingly angry as Ottawa siphoned the province's resources to subsidize a Quebec-centric agenda.

While the federal government devoted its energies to damping separatist flames, the French fact steadily diminished in importance within the Canadian mosaic. For the past four decades, the overwhelming majority of immigrants to this country have come from Asia, Latin America and Africa. The Battle of the Plains of Abraham meant no more to them than the Treaty of Westphalia.

The necessary price of embracing multiculturalism has been a certain national ahistoricism. Ottawa's addiction to the Quebec question thus rendered it less relevant to the lives of the country's newer citizens. The rebalancing of priorities in the Martin government is a necessary antidote to a federal government estranged from much of the populace.

Quebec is grievously underrepresented in the new PMO. Four of the 13 senior staff in the Prime Minister's Office are francophone. But when the full cabinet is revealed today, Quebeckers will have their fair share of posts.

In the government of Paul Martin, however, Quebec will be a region, a region that is primus inter pares, perhaps, but a region nonetheless. Its interests will be balanced against -- and will not necessarily trump -- the interests of Atlantic Canada, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia.

Many Quebeckers will not like this. Already some Quebec journalists have questioned the propriety of a finance minister not being bilingual. And, as usually happens when the provincial Liberals are in power, support for sovereignty in Quebec is on the rise.

On the other hand (and there is always another hand), Mr. Martin is enormously popular in Quebec (he is fondly remembered for having supported the failed Meech Lake accord). He can be expected to reach out to nationalist Quebeckers of the sort who were once more comfortable in Brian Mulroney's Conservative government. The Bloc Québécois will suffer at the hands of Paul Martin in a way it did not suffer at the hands of Jean Chrétien.

But politics is often a zero-sum game. If Mr. Martin genuinely wants to assuage regional alienation -- and the appointments of Mr. Goodale and Ms. McLellan is a solid demonstration of that desire -- then he will have to do it at the expense of Quebec interests. Call it a fresh humiliation if you want, but it is the way of the new political world.

jibbitson@globeandmail.ca


© 2003 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

There is a strange agressive, vengeful tone to this article. And in order to make its point, the journalist is not above one or two exagerations, like that bit about downtown Ottawa being ravaged by Pierre Trudeau's decision to move much of the federal public service to Hull. Much of it ? Really ? Come on.

And saying that Paul Martin is not a Quebecker is a strange thing. If someone has elected residence in a province for most of his adult life, has raised its family in Montreal and has its summer house in the Eastern Township; if that person studied in Montreal and build a company here (the Canada Steamship Line has its headquarter in Montreal); if that person spent his whole political life as a Montreal deputy: doesn't that make him a Montrealer? If not, then all those immigrants in Toronto, well, I guess they are not really Torontonians, right ?

Paul Martin is still today a resident of Montreal and he said that he would not even choose Ottawa as its main residence. I think its wife want to stay close to the Rizt Carlton as much as possible...

I would not have been surprise to read such an article in the National Post, but in the Globe ?

By the way, how would English Canada reacted if the Finance Minister was a unilingual francophone? Or , for that matter, ANY minister? But we'll never find out, since it never actually happened that a minister in Ottawa was able to speak only french. But it's perfectly normal to have unilingual anglophone minister...
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

Paul Martin is still today a resident of Montreal and he said that he would not even choose Ottawa as its main residence. I think its wife want to stay close to the Rizt Carlton as much as possible...
Oh oh.
Will Paul Martin offer a new deal for cities? Or a new and better deal for Montreal?
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

Canada is only 25% francophone..........
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

Thanks for reminded me and therefore putting me in my place, which is a minority who should shut up.
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

I'm only saying that its arrogant for a minority to expect everything to revolve it in the way a majority can.

A unilingual francophone minister is different entirely than a unilingual anglophone minister. It shouldn't be a cause for concern when a minister can't speak french. Believe it or not, but french isn't terribly important in most of Canada.

I really have no appetite for francophone self-pitying. Quebec gets an EXTREMELY sweet deal in this country.
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

Quebecers know all about Martin and like what he stands for... and there will be no backlash just because Martin plans on phasing on the federal bribes to la belle province. Quebecers don't want bribes... just a little respect. That's why they prefer Martin over Chretien.

I support the Clarity Act because it will prevent fiascos like the 1995 referendum from ever happening again... but give francophones a little breathing room. Whether officially recognised or not, Quebec really is a nation within a nation.
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

"(...)french isn't terribly important in most of Canada.
(...)"

OK, I'll try to remember that. Especially the next time you proudly championned Toronto's multi-ethnicity. What irony!
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

A unilingual francophone minister is different entirely than a unilingual anglophone minister. It shouldn't be a cause for concern when a minister can't speak french.

Believe it or not, but french isn't terribly important in most of Canada.

You know, afransen, it's comments like this that allow me to sympathize with Québec nationalists and, dare I say, even separatists. Also, as an Acadian, I should take this opportunity to observe that this is precisely the sort of attitude which has led to the assimilation of the French-Canadian population down East. It's disrespectful; it's short-sighted; and it borders on intolerance.

The plain fact of the matter is that you are entirely misconceiving Canada in regard to its French population. This country was not built as a unilingual, unitary state. It was constructed as a bilingual, federal state, which respects the historic right of each province to its own language, its own traditions, and its own culture. All of these facts require reflection in the federal government and, by extension, in the federal cabinet.

Quite simply, Canada is fundamentally a bilingual federation. You cannot separate this fact from your conception of the country. The francophone population has an inherent right to participation and representation in the federal government, by virtue of the terms of union in 1867 and by virtue of the protections erected for the French language in 1982. So, it doesn’t matter what percentage of the population is francophone – Canada isn’t the Canada that the French-Canadians signed up for if we don’t get fair representation (which will sometimes be disproportional to our numbers).

That being said, I am not terribly perturbed by the fact that the top three posts in the federal government are occupied by anglophones. It simply represents the diversity of the country beyond Québec and beyond the francophone regions. However, I would posit that, if these three individuals had no desire to learn French so that they might be able to connect with a broader section of the historic and the contemporary reality of Canada, they would cross a line. The fact is that, if you want to participate in the upper echelons of government, you have a responsibility to learn the official languages of this country.

All of that aside, Ibbitson has a very good point in this article. However, I would suggest that he does not go far enough in his analysis. I follow Québec politics very, very closely, and I have to say that I see some very tough times coming in the next decade. I will not elaborate too much on this point – all I will say is that a portion of the former fence-sitters on the sovereignty issues were radicalized by the Clarity Act and by the Plan B strategy of Dion/Chrétien, and I only see Martin making the situation much worse (at least with Chrétien, Québécois didn’t get their hopes up – and remember what happens with a disappointed Québec, cf early 90s after the failed accords).
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

This is precisely why I have no sympathy for francophone self-pitying.

So, by saying that it is ridiculous to demand that every single politician in the country speak french fluently, I am said to be intolerant? What a lovely country we live in.

Honestly, why doesn't french Canada celebrate its culture rather than continually focus on how its supposedly slighted by english Canada, which subsidizes its lifestyle in a very big way. If Quebec honestly feels that Canada doesn't support it and its distinct culture, I encourage it to leave Confederation. Otherwise, it should try not to demand such a disproportionate amount of the political power in this country. It only increases the resentment towards Quebec felt by the rest of the country.

I find it difficult to respect a person who insinuates that a person is a biggot for not supporting preferential treatment for a free, equal and unpersecuted minority.
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

You're generalising all Quebec Nationalists, afransen. They are not all self-pitiers... but it is true that the leadership of the separatist movements always turn to humiliation and self-pity as a tool to obtain support.

The francophone population of Quebec (like every other non-WASP population in Canada) was humiliated and mistreated in the 50s and 60s. The separatist movement took advantage of this sentiment to promote their agenda and kept reminding people of this. It may be outdated now but it did happen.

Re: the Clarity Act:
It has been around for a while now and there was no backlash nor do I believe there will be in the future. Polls don't show it. I believe the Clarity Act killed the separatist movement (which I have no respect for as it is based on lies and deception). Polls usually show that the 'Yes' side has something like 40% support... but 'Yes' to what? If you ask the specific question 'should Quebec be taken out of Canada', you will only get about 10-15% support. Thanks to the Clarity Act, the country will never be hi-jacked again like it was in 1995. As Boutros Boutros-Ghali told Chretien after the referendum in 1995, 'How could you let this happen? If it were that easy to create new countries, we'd have hundreds of new countries popping up each day'. Chretien was deeply affected by the UN criticism and prepared the Clarity Act.

No separatist would ever have the guts to ask an honest question and no separatist would ever win with an honest question.
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

"You're generalising all Quebec Nationalists, afransen. "

I'm not speaking of all Quebec Nationalists... I'm speaking of those who use self-pity and other techniques to achieve their political goals.
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

This is precisely why I have no sympathy for francophone self-pitying.

It has nothing to do with self-pitying, afransen. It has everything to do with our rights as full members of this federation. We came into Canada expecting to get proper representation as one of the three founding peoples of this country, and we are fully entitled to press proper respect for our rights in this regard.

So, by saying that it is ridiculous to demand that every single politician in the country speak french fluently, I am said to be intolerant? What a lovely country we live in.

First of all, I am not suggesting that all politicians should have to speak French. However, I would suggest that the high-ranking ministers should at least have a working knowledge of French. If you go to Ottawa and if you want to get into the higher levels of the cabinet, I don't think this is an unreasonable requirement. The federal government offers excellent French language instruction free of charge to all parliamentarians who are interested. Also, I should not that, if a politician is francophone and if he wants to join the upper ranks of cabinet, he should have to learn English. It goes both ways.

Secondly, I am not suggesting that you are intolerant for holding that politicans shouldn't have to learn French. I am suggesting that you seem unwilling to recognize the struggle inherent in being a French-Canadian. French is not important outside of the francophone regions of the country, you're right. Heck, as an Acadian who lives in Ontario, I can attest to this fact, and I can tell you about the times that I was told to shut up for speaking French. All the more reason to actively promote and support the French language in Canada.

Honestly, why doesn't french Canada celebrate its culture rather than continually focus on how its supposedly slighted by english Canada, which subsidizes its lifestyle in a very big way.

This comment is completely off the mark. First, by pressing our RIGHTS, we are not focusing on how we are slighted. We are actually celebrating our culture and supporting it with all our vigour. Second, we are not getting a subsidy for our lifestyle. We are simply having our rights respected. Full stop.

If Quebec honestly feels that Canada doesn't support it and its distinct culture, I encourage it to leave Confederation.

The French fact in Canada extends beyond Quebec. As a French-Canadian in Ontario, I am very proud of the fact that I can send my kids (one day) to a French school and that I have a fundamental right to do so.

Also, I stand in disbelief in your lack of faith and of commitment to Canada, which included protections for the French-Canadian population in the most basic tenants of the constitution.

Otherwise, it should try not to demand such a disproportionate amount of the political power in this country.

It is not a disproportionate power. It's a power in accordance with our rights. You're still misconceiving the issue.

It only increases the resentment towards Quebec felt by the rest of the country.

Three words for that part of the country that feels resentment toward French-Canadians: get over it! The protection of the francophone language and culture through our political institutions enriches Canada. We need to distinguish between standing up to separatists and fostering French-Canadian rights.

I find it difficult to respect a person who insinuates that a person is a biggot for not supporting preferential treatment for a free, equal and unpersecuted minority.

I did not suggest that you were a bigot. Don't take it so far!

That being said, I am not supporting preferential treatment. I am simply advocating that French-Canadians should be able to exercise the rights to which they are entitled by virtue of Confederation and of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Ganja, I hope that you are right with regard to the Clarity Act, but I get the distinct sense given my knowledge of Quebec politics that you are wrong. Remember, the partiation did not lead to an immediate boost for separatism - yet, it was a powerful weapon in the hands of Lucien Bouchard. I fear that the Clarity Act will be much the same in the future. And, if this happens, then all of the arguments about the Clarity Act requiring a clear majority on a clear question will only anger Quebecois and lead to a larger 'yes' vote on an unclear question... It was a silly move if not combined with a fundamental attack on the basic tenants of Quebec separatist and (to a certain extent) nationalism. That is, if Chretien/Dion wanted to get tough, they should have gone all the way - the Clarity Act seems like a half measure to me, and half measures will only ever make separatism all the more likely in the long run.
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

I heard on Global News tonight that currently, Francophones make up 22% of Canada's population. They also hold 40% of all Federal Gov't Jobs.

I think that's quite a sweet deal.
 
Re: How will Quebec react?JOHN IBBITSON G&M !! READ THIS

"I heard on Global News tonight that currently, Francophones make up 22% of Canada's population. They also hold 40% of all Federal Gov't Jobs.

I think that's quite a sweet deal."

I'm sure that's because more francophones are bilingual... not because of any quota system.
 

Back
Top