Looking at Harper's proposal for Quebec

The first time I ever cast a ballot was in the Charlottetown referendum in 1992, where I voted "no" to codifying special status for francophone Quebeckers in the Constitution of Canada through the distinct society clause. I felt that although Canada was built on two founding nations, it was time to move beyond that and see the country as ten equal provinces, each with their own attributes. Sure, Quebec was and still is obviously different, but minority rights are already guaranteed in the Charter. Why did we need to put special status for one group above all others in the Canadian constitution? In multiethnic, multilingual, multicultural Canada, especially now in 2005, 13 years after Charlottetown, the concept of special status for one group over all the others smacks of favouritism and inequality.

Harper's proposal to allow Quebec its own seat at the international table beside Canada would harken back to giving one province special status. This is not the way to build and strengthen Canada. Instead, it smacks of appeasement. Does he think that separatists are going to stop pursuing their own country because they are given special status internationally? No way. They will want more. The federal government has tried for 40 years to try and make separatists believe that Canada is worth being a part of and the PQ and BQ have never been stronger.

Meanwhile, we see the antics of people in Chicoutimi toward minorities like Ted Nolan. Make no mistake ... this is the Pequiste/Blocquiste way. Sure, in the cities, not as much, because there has been some success in reaching out towards non-pur laine Quebecers, but in the separatist heartland of Lac St. Jean and surrounding areas like Chicoutimi, I believe there is a deep streak of nativism and exclusion directed towards those who are seen as one of "les autres". Codifying the distinction between francophone Quebecers and non-francophone Quebecers through the distinct society clause would have simply emboldened the feeling of superiority of small-minded and tribal Quebec "bluenecks" towards those who are not like them. The numbers of modern, outward-looking, globally-minded francophone Quebecers who are truly proud of both their Quebecois AND Canadian identities are diminishing. That's becoming more and more obvious all the time.

And so, as Jeffrey Simpson asks below, do the vast majority of Quebeckers even care about being a part of the Canadian family anymore? If so, what's the point of coming up with grandiose schemes like the one Harper is proposing?

I have reproduced Simpson's complete column from today's Globe and Mail because it is worth reading in full.

What next?

Why build bridges to Quebec if Quebeckers could care less?

JEFFREY SIMPSON

The French philosopher Ernest Renan once argued that a nation is a people that has done great things together and wants to do great things together in the future.

By that definition, half of Quebeckers are now outside the Canadian nation, a point underscored by their support for the Bloc Quebecois. The BQ does not want to do great things within Canada. It wants a separate country.

If, election after election, large numbers of Quebeckers keep voting for a Quebec-only party that can never be part of the governing of Canada, then those voters are apparently not interested in Canada. Or, their attachment is only as deep as the next cheque coming from Ottawa. A country, as Renan would say, cannot be built or sustained on a cheque.

The BQ's support represents a nightmare for Canadian politics and unity. The BQ takes so many seats out of play for the national parties that Canadian politics is consigned minority governments. These, as Canadian history demonstrates, never last very long.

The BQ also radically departs from Canadian political history. Francophones have played important national roles ever since Sir John A. Macdonald insisted all successful parties had to be "Frenchified." They do today inside the Liberal government, but the Liberals are now a rusting hulk of a party in Quebec. The BQ, not the Liberals, dominates Quebec.

A Quebecker has been prime minister for 51 of 138 years since Confederation. Most governments with prime ministers from outside Quebec had Quebec lieutenants and/or a significant number of Quebec MPs. Winning Quebec was almost always the key to winning national power.

Canadian political parties historically were among the most important institutions linking Canada's regions, especially Quebec and the rest of the country. The parties were bridges, if you like. The BQ and its supporters are not interested in bridges within Canada. They don't care about the Canadian experience, except to tear it down. They are happy to be in political opposition, focusing only on Quebec issues, and not participating in the governance of the country.

Federal systems represent give-and-take. People in a federation's regions search for the best deal possible from the centre, but they also display a willingness to participate in national governance -- not just to protect their interests but because they are part of a larger country that wants to do things, if not always great things, together.

The BQ is all take and no give. This posture appeals to those who vote for the party. Better still for the BQ, it can take credit whenever Ottawa does something that satisfies Quebec, insisting that BQ pressure produced the goods, and blame the federal system for everything that goes wrong. In an all-take/no-give world, no one by definition can ever be satisfied.

There are gradations, of course, to the all-take/no-give world. The Liberal government in Quebec City preaches asymmetrical federalism, whereby Quebec opts out of national programs, demands a Quebec foreign policy in areas of provincial jurisdiction, and insists it remains committed to Canada. Then we have majority of Quebeckers in national elections opting out of country-building by voting BQ.

Quebec has dominated federal politics and national policy-making for four decades. Now, in provincial and federal politics, it is clear an increasing number of Quebeckers don't care about Canada, witness to which is starkly given by support for the BQ.

In 1997, the BQ got 38 per cent; in 2000, 40 per cent; in 2004, 49 per cent; it looks set to break through the 50-per-cent score this time. These trends logically if painfully beg the question: If Quebeckers are no longer much interested in national politics, why should national politics be much interested in Quebec? This question is not "Quebec-bashing," It merely reflects the reality in Quebec, and the logical extension of that argument elsewhere.

The Liberals, for most of Confederation, thought more about Quebec than the Conservatives or NDP. They were the bridge-builders into Quebec. But what happens when folks on the other side aren't much interested in bridges? Who needs bridge-builders any more?

The Conservatives, being historically much weaker in Quebec, didn't think as much about the province as the Liberals. If Quebec is going to vote heavily for a party that is not interested in Canada -- and so vote election after election -- you can ask why the rest of Canada should not support parties that are less interested in Quebec.

And then we would see where this new combination of mutual lack of interest takes the country.