French media are run by individuals roughly divided half and half on the merits of federalism and the merits of Québec sovereignty. French speaking reporters brush with the other side on a daily basis. Their reports and opinions have to be well documented for them to maintain their credibility.
English media are run by a vast majority of federalist individuals who don't get the opportunity to challenge the merits of their position as often as their French speaking counterparts. Canadians are under the impression that national media suffice to fully understand what makes this country tick. National media aren't enough.
Maclean's story has inspired many interesting reactions in French language media, but these reactions missed the magazine's target audience. Today, Jean-François Lisée takes the time to directly address this audience in an articulate and passionate response; he was an adviser to Lucien Bouchard. This is what he has to say about the PQ's attempt at balancing the province's monies in the days that followed the 1995 referendum:
12 comments:
Ironically, it was L.Bouchard who recently criticized Quebec for fiscal irresponsibility and the PQ specifically for advancing in its "linguistic" extremism. Bouchard went on the record to say that: "la souveraineté n'est pas une solution parceque elle n'est pas realisable". I wonder what Lisee had to say about that.
Regarding the MacLean's piece, I was driving to work yesterday and I heard on the radio that all 4 leaders in Ottawa more or less condemned the article. Congratulations, Quebec. You are officially immune from criticism. And any criticism that might occasionally break through the press will be immediately tackled by Ottawa bureaucrats of all stripes, colors, and political denominations.
The "separation" threat works. It's like a gun put to the head of an otherwise decent country. All these fake separatists who never intend to vote "Oui" (and some openly admit it) but keep apologizing for and defending Quebec nationalism know what they're doing. Blackmail works.
In all of this, a question that has intrigued me for a few years now is this: why hasn't Canada ever tried to remove Quebec from the confederation? The popular sentiment is certainly there all over the ROC. And it would make sense economically. ON, BC, and AB would no longer have to send money to QC. There would be no more OLA to deal with. And no more double standard as far as immunity from criticism goes.
The answer is probably because the removal of Quebec would disrupt the geographical continuity of the country. Quebec is lucky in this respect. If it was somewhere on the periphery, it could have been dropped a long time ago. And Canada would never stand for things like bill 101 that amongst other things ban one of the two official languages from public space (1977-1993).
"The 'separation' threat works. It's like a gun put to the head of an otherwise decent country."
That seems to be only type of dialog Ottawa responds to and, like you (I assume), I think it's unfortunate.
Bickering does seem to be an important Canadian hobby. ;-)
"That seems to be only type of dialog Ottawa responds to and, like you (I assume), I think it's unfortunate."
The problem with this "logic" is that it makes the guy doing the blackmail (Quebec) the good guy and the blackmailed guy (the RoC) the bad guy, where it should be the other way around (let’s keep in mind that the ROC owes nothing to Quebec but it is often treated as if it does). It also conveniently diverts attention from the fact that blackmail IS being committed, which is an aberrant situation by default.
In reality, blackmail (especially when it becomes a habit) is nothing positive. It is something that is usually short-lived (although in this case it has been allowed to go on for quite a long time), and never leads to viable solutions, as those that are blackmailed to cede are not ceding willingly, and those that gain through blackmail sooner or later end up paying the price. In this case, the price could be the western provinces, from ON through AB to BC, getting together, overruling Ottawa, getting rid of Quebec and forming a promising, economically viable and cohesive new country west of Quebec, whereas the Maritimes would probably end up being taken up by the US. Quebec would be left alone with its "Quebec model" of national socialism that it would no longer be able to sustain.
In any case, I hope that this is the move that ON, BC, and AB will one day make. In the very least, they should figure out a way to override Ottawa’s policy of concessions dished out at the mere mention of "separation". Instead, the threats of separation should be ignored, or maybe even encouraged. Meaning that if you’re not happy, then go. Bon voyage and good riddance. But if you want to stay, then you’re very welcome to stay but only on equal terms and only if you accept that being unique and distinct (which you certainly are on account of language and culture) does NOT entitle you to any special treatment.
Adski,
You're caricaturing the Québec-Ottawa relationship. These blackmailing episodes have been sporadically going on both ways. You're overestimating the reach of the motion passed by the HoC, but you're right about it not being productive.
You're also right about Québec's different language and culture not entitling it to special treatment. There are plenty of states around the world with a different language and culture that carry on without such a treatment. However, Québec's unique situation (7+ million Francophones in a sea of 330 million English-speakers) does require unique measures to safeguard it's language and culture. Call it special treatment if you wish, but these measures could be part of the federal framework, provided Canadians allow it. Western Canada settling Québec's situation is obviously another possibility worth considering.
Finally, when someone's aversion for the sovereignty movement makes him welcome the possible woes of his own fellow citizens to illustrate the limits of an independent Québec, it's safe to conclude that his argumentation has reached the end of the roll and that his judgment has been affected. Wouldn't you say?
James,
I was a teenager when the PQ was first elected and remember it vividly. I've seen support for sovereignty go up and down. The sovereigntists' strongest moments always followed periods when English-speaking Canadians were less careful because they felt everything was under control.
Why rock the boat you ask? Because it's easier to control while the waters are calm.
I agree James. Although I wish a constitutional change could accommodate Québec, I sincerely doubt it will ever happen.
Meech was fairly straightforward. It was labeled Québec's minimal demands by Robert Bourassa, a Liberal government, but it was too much for Canadians. Charlottetown, which was slightly less than Meech in terms of demands, was still too much for many Canadians while it wasn't enough for the Québécois.
I realize Canadians are under the impression that all this is settled and, with time, demographics will set it in stone. It's possible...
Post a Comment