|
"What Can We Learn from the Michaud Affair?
The Incompatibility of Civic Nationalism and Secession"
Notes for an address
by the Honourable Stéphane Dion,
President of the Privy Council and
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
Keynote address at the
Faculty of Law
University of Sherbrooke
Sherbrooke, Québec
April 5, 2001
Check against delivery
What has come to be called the Michaud affair obliges us to examine once again
the foundations of the separatist movement in Quebec.
The most immediate effect of this affair was that it may have precipitated the
withdrawal from political life of one of the most popular premiers in Quebec's
history. Although Mr. Bouchard said in his farewell speech that the affair
did not cause his departure, he added in the same breath: "I have no
desire to pursue any discussion whatsoever on the Holocaust and the vote of
ethnic and cultural communities." [translation]
One can understand Mr. Bouchard. We would like to be able to say that this
unpleasant incident is now behind us and that it would be better forgotten. But
it was Mr. Bouchard himself who deplored the fact that this affair and its
repercussions "[have] damaged Quebec's reputation abroad."
[translation] Here in Quebec, the shock wave continues to be felt, for example,
in the ideological dispute over Quebec identity that has pitted Mr. Duceppe
against one of his fellow caucus members, Mr. Lebel, and former members of his
party's youth wing.
We are facing a recurrent problem which always re-emerges just when we think we
can avoid it. Today, it takes the form of insistent debates on the inclusive or
exclusive nature, ethnic or civic, of our nationalism.
I am going to give you my opinion on this. I am well aware that I have been
anything but a neutral observer on this issue over the past five years.
Nevertheless, the arguments I am about to make are exactly the same as those I
defended as an academic on January 18, 1995, before the group Cité libre.
Speaking to that Trudeauist assembly, I stated that there is no indication that
the Quebecers of today are generally more xenophobic than other Canadians. The
problem we are facing, I added, is not that Quebec society has any particular
predisposition to xenophobia. Rather, it is that it is impossible to justify
Quebec's leaving Canada in a way that has the same resonance for Quebecers of
French stock as for other Quebecers.
The problem of which the Michaud affair is a symptom thus stems less from Quebec
society than from the project of secession itself. This is what I intend to
demonstrate today.
1. The intolerance of the
"ethnic vote" argument
As you will recall, in a radio interview with journalist Paul Arcand on December
5, 2000, Mr. Yves Michaud reproached Jews with believing that
"you are the only people in the world who have suffered in the history
of humanity." [translation] That statement is unjustifiable, of
course, and I do not think it is necessary to elaborate any further on that. Nor
do I intend to dwell too long on the fact that Mr. Michaud's opinion does not
reflect the Quebec of today.
B'nai Brith - the Jewish organization which Mr. Michaud accuses of being
"anti-Quebecer extremists" [translation] - produces an annual
report which indicates that antisemitic incidents are much less frequent in
Montreal than in Toronto or Ottawa.
One can certainly find polls that point to a higher level of mistrust toward
ethnic diversity in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada, but there are others that
show just the opposite. For example, recent Ekos polls indicate that Quebecers
are less inclined than other Canadians to feel that there are too many
immigrants or members of visible minorities in Canada.
The Michaud affair is also the unanimous censure by the National Assembly, it is
also the fact that this prominent separatist had to withdraw from the PQ
nomination in Mercier.
Since Mr. Michaud's comments have been so clearly repudiated, why revisit them
today? It is because they had as a backdrop a debate which is far from over.
This debate is about the reasons why independence holds such little attraction
for non-Francophone Quebecers.
"We lost [the referendum] because of money and ethnic votes,"
stated Mr. Michaud, reiterating the famous comment by Mr. Parizeau. "There
is thus zero intolerance [sic] by immigrants toward
ourselves," he added, finding it "stupefying and horrifying"
that not a single Yes vote had been found at some polling stations with a high
"immigrant" concentration [translation].
"Democracy is tainted," he exclaimed. "We Quebecers,
when we vote in a referendum, there is 60% Yes, 40% No. There is a democratic
balance." [translation]
On December 13, 2000, speaking to the Commission of the Estates General on the
French Language, Mr. Michaud assigned immigrants the duty "of
accompanying us on the path that leads to control of all the tools for our
development" [translation].
Another relevant fact for our discussion today is that, although these comments
by Mr. Michaud on the "ethnic vote" have also been repudiated,
including by Messrs. Landry and Duceppe, they have found support nonetheless.
"It's nothing to make a fuss about," said Mr. Jacques
Parizeau (interview with Paul Arcand, CKAC, January 12, 2001), reducing the
whole matter to a simple statistical finding as to the low number of votes by
non-Francophones in favour of independence. "The painful reality of the
facts cannot be denied," he wrote along with a number of co-signers in
a letter of support for Mr. Michaud (Le Soleil and Le Devoir,
December 19, 2000) [translation].
A mere reminder of the facts? All ethnic and cultural minorities are summoned to
provide their contingent of separatist voters, on pain of being accused of
intolerance, of being against Quebecers, and this is no more than a mere
reminder of the facts? Of course not. It is intolerance toward non-Francophone -
or non-French stock - Quebecers, who are reproached for not sufficiently
supporting the project of independence.
2. Lack of support for
independence is not the sign of a lack of integration
We must not make generalizations: not all separatist spokespersons go so far as
to blame ethnic and cultural minorities for how they vote. But many of them see
the weak support for independence among non-Francophone voters as proof of a
lack of integration into Quebec society.
On October 3,1995, in the middle of the referendum campaign, Mr. Landry, at
the very time that he was the Minister of Immigration and Cultural
Communities, made the following comment at a press conference regarding the
votes of ethnic minorities: "There's something that's not working in
terms of integration. If they're integrated, they do as we do."
[translation] In other words, if they integrate, they vote in the same
proportion as we (Francophone Quebecers) do in favour of Quebec independence.
It is as if in order to be integrated into Quebec, you have to be a separatist.
Logically, this reasoning should also apply to so-called old-stock Quebecers who
support Canadian unity: they too should be considered to be insufficiently
integrated into Quebec.
Of course, this reasoning is inaccurate: there is no link between integration
into Quebec and the opinion one might have on Quebec's secession from Canada. An
ethnic or cultural community can be very well integrated into Quebec even though
only a small number of its members support independence. A recent study by the
Centre for Ethnic Studies of the Université de Montréal, entitled Ils sont
maintenant d'ici! [they're from here now], indicated that
immigrants are integrating relatively well into our majority Francophone
society. Indeed, it would be difficult to find an issue other than secession
that divides Quebecers on an ethnic basis.
If the issue of secession, for its part, brings about an ethnic rift, it is
neither because Francophones are xenophobic, nor because non-Francophones are
insufficiently integrated. It is because only Francophone Quebecers might think
secession would provide them with a country in which they would be the majority.
Quebec's secession from Canada would make Francophone Quebecers the majority
within their own country. It would give no such status to other Quebecers. This
is why the latter are less likely to support this project. The reason so few of
them support independence is not that they might be poorly integrated into
Quebec, but quite simply because not a single convincing reason has ever been
presented to them for renouncing Canada.
3. There is no civic
reason for renouncing Canada
Let us ask a straight question: why separate from Canada? All of the reasons
that could be invented - that Canada is supposedly too centralized, or is
economically dysfunctional, or that Quebec might not be receiving its fair share
- are merely a smokescreen. Let us be frank. We know full well that Quebec
independence is simply not an economic imperative, and that an independent
Quebec would be much more centralized than this "extraordinarily
decentralized federation" that is Canada, as Mr. Parizeau
said himself (speech given in Quebec City on February 28, 1999) [translation].
Make no mistake: the Quebec independence movement hinges upon the attraction
that the notion of becoming a majority within their country exerts among
Francophone Quebecers.
This reality always catches up with our separatist leaders, despite all their
professions of faith in civic nationalism. They regularly let slip a "we
Quebecers" that does not include all Quebecers. Let us revisit the
concession speech Mr. Parizeau made on referendum night. As you will recall,
before railing against the "ethnic vote," he stated: "If
you want to stop talking about Quebec Francophones, fine, let's talk about us.
60% of us voted in favour... good!" And following chants of "Quebec
for Quebecers!" by the crowd, Mr. Parizeau exclaimed: "Never
forget: three fifths of what we are voted Yes." [translation]
"What we are" has been defined by the former leaders of the
youth forum of the Bloc québécois as "the French national community,"
or "the people formerly French-Canadians, now French Quebecers,"
in a brief to the Estates General on the situation of French in Quebec. In
another document, entitled "The Manifesto of the National Thought"
[translation], they called on their leaders as follows: "We deplore the
fact that the current sovereignist movement refuses to accept what it truly is."
[translation]
I do not agree with the conception these young people have of life in a society,
and I understand why Mr. Duceppe has distanced himself from them. Nevertheless,
they reveal secessionism for what it really is: a movement seeking to make
Francophone Quebecers a majority within their own country. The other reasons put
forth for renouncing Canada are a flimsy veil which ill hides this
all-too-embarrassing reality.
It was Fernand Dumont who wrote: "We currently speak of the 'Quebec
nation.' This is a mistake, if not a fiction. If our English fellow citizens in
Quebec do not feel that they belong to our nation, if many Allophones are
repelled by it, if the Aboriginals reject it, can I make them a part of it with
some sort of magic vocabulary?" (Raisons communes, 1995,
p.63) [translation]. In response to this question, I answer that very few of our
fellow citizens are repelled by being Quebecers. It is not belonging to Quebec
that is the problem, it is renouncing Canada.
It is not Quebec nationalism that cannot be civic, it is secessionism. You can
find many arguments to convince human beings of all origins to become Quebecers.
But you will come up short when it is a matter of convincing them to cease to be
Canadians as well.
Conclusion
Advocates of Canadian unity would be very mistaken to see the xenophobic
outbursts that tarnish the independence movement as proof that Quebec is a
society less tolerant than the rest of the country.
Proponents of Quebec independence would be very mistaken to see the lack of
support they have among non-Francophones as proof that the latter are poorly
integrated into Quebec.
Finger-pointing achieves nothing. What is needed is an examination of the very
foundation of the secessionist project.
In a democratic state, in which all citizens enjoy civil rights, it is
impossible to justify secession with universal arguments, by which I mean
arguments likely to be valid for all citizens regardless of their ethnic origin.
In a colonialist or totalitarian state, which denies civil rights to all or some
of its citizens, it is possible to base a secessionist claim on universal
rights. It is never the will to separate populations of different languages,
cultures or religions that can legitimize secession. Justification stems instead
from the fact that citizens have good reason to want to break away from a state
that does not treat them as citizens. This is undoubtedly why both international
law and enlightened state practice do not recognize a right to external
self-determination, that is, a right to secession, except to peoples in a
colonial situation or who are victims of grave human rights violations.
Such universal arguments are not available to justify secession in a democratic
state. All that remains are particularist arguments linked to an ethnic group.
In our case, the particularist argument is as follows: we Francophone Quebecers
will become the majority if our country is limited to the boundaries of Quebec,
rather than extending to all of Canada.
So this is the argument that must be discussed, without any smoke and mirrors:
must we, Francophone Quebecers, renounce Canada, where we are in the minority,
and form a majority within our own country? As you know, my answer to that
question is no, for a number of reasons, but the most fundamental is the
following: I believe that confident mutual support by different populations
within a single democratic state - which in our case is called Canada - is a
greater and more valid ideal than the process of rupture which would consist of
limiting our state to the territory in which our own ethnic or linguistic group
finds itself in the majority.
If we had to break up a country because "the others" were more
numerous than "we," how could we ask our own minorities to trust us as
the majority? In any event, we could not offer them as extensive an autonomy as
that which we had deemed to be insufficient for ourselves within Canada, because
no one is talking of making an independent Quebec a decentralized federation.
Renouncing Canadian solidarity means accepting a principle of rupture and a
mistrust of others which run counter to the solidarity among Quebecers.
Secession is an exercise whereby one chooses one's fellow citizens: you choose
whom you want to keep and whom you want to transform into foreigners. There is
no civic reason for doing so in a democratic country such as Canada. On the
contrary, democracy calls upon us to show solidarity toward all our fellow
citizens.
Again, I am not confronting one nationalism with another, Canadian versus
Quebec; I maintain that the two complement each other very well. Rather, I am
confronting the particularist quest for majority status with the universal
principle of solidarity among all citizens.
Camus said: "I love my country too much to be a nationalist."
For my part, I love Quebec, I love Canada, but it is not so much a nationalist
sentiment as a universal principle that attaches me to Canadian unity: I want to
keep all of my fellow citizens.
|
