Les brisés et les briseurs

Adam Daifallah has a post on the apparently contradictory poll results regarding Quebec separatism (his analysis is slightly inaccurate and corrected in the comments):

There you have it. Even at the height of this sponsorship scandal, 56% of Quebecers want to stay in Canada. As Sheila Copps said on CTV last weekend, the separatists don't have the guts to ask a real question on separatism. Because if they do, they can't win.

To most ROCians, this is a puzzle: how can you want to stay in Canada, and yet want to vote yes on a referendum regarding sovereignty?  Are Quebeckers nuts?  Are they ignorant fools, tricked by their dishonest leaders? 

The answer is no, they are not exactly ignorant fools, but many of them suffer from misconceptions about the ROC--just as many ROCians suffer from misconceptions about Quebec.  I think, though, that this being an English-language blog, it is more fruitful and important for me first to illuminate an important distinction that many people in "English Canada" miss.

In a nutshell, the misconception (and hence common misinterpretations of Quebec poll results and so on) lies in the view of the concept of "sovereignty" vs. "separation."  The ROC tends to view the choice of Quebec as having to do with "separation," whereas in Quebec it has to do with "sovereignty."  In the ROC, it is taken as a process of alienation: that Quebeckers are rejecting Canada and its polity and people and culture out of a mysterious and unmanageable sense of historical resentment.  That they are "breaking" Canada.  This is what the word "separation" means. 

I was a pretty imaginative child (interested in politics at an early age), and I used to imagine masses of Quebeckers lining up at the Quebec border with giant saws, and then sailing off into the ocean without even waving goodbye... This sounds silly, but that is what many ROCians subconsciously think of the process of separation. 

Quebeckers in general do not seem to think of "separation."  They think of "sovereignty."  Even without the "association" part, it means something quite a bit different from "separation." Whether or not it has the same legal effect, it has a very different sense of sentiment.  Rather than wanting to disconnect from the ROC, it is often believed by Quebeckers that the status quo is a submerging of the Quebec voice and a source of resentment towards Quebec by the ROC--and that means you, Western aliens!  The sovereignty of Quebec means that Quebec will actually take its place as an equal voice, in charge of its own destiny, yes, but far from disconnected from the ROC.  Sometimes when resentful children move out of a stressful house, they can grow into a better relationship.  As this letter to Le Devoir put it,

Lorsque les fédéralistes mettent en garde les Québécois contre les séparatistes, ils disent que le PQ veut briser le Canada. Et l'image qui me vient à l'esprit est celle du pot de porcelaine qui se brise en mille morceaux lors d'une chute fatale. Ce pot est irréparable. Il n'en est pas ainsi du pays du Canada qui, comme un chat, possède plusieurs vies parce qu'il possède de nombreuses richesses humaines.

Mais plus j'y pense, avec les révélations de la commission Gomery, c'est le Parti libéral du Canada qui est en train de briser le Canada et non la séparation du Québec. Nous en sommes là.

He's saying that it is the Liberal Party that is destroying Canada, not Quebec separation: in sum, he is saying that Canada will have many lives, and one of these lives can include an sovereign Quebec.  For Quebec to separate is by no means to break Canada.  Or in this article by the leader of a Quebec union/left organization (illustrating once again the NDP's quandary in Quebec):

Aussi, plutôt que de freiner le mouvement d’émancipation du peuple québécois, nous invitons Françoise David, Pierre Beaudet et l’Option citoyenne à s’y inscrire et à conseiller à leurs camarades du Canada anglais de plancher sur ce que devrait être un Canada sans le Québec et les liens qui devraient unir les deux pays pour faire face à l’hyperpuissance du sud. Car la meilleure façon d’empêcher l’émergence de situations de conflits et de violence – une préoccupation que nous partageons avec Pierre Beaudet – est d’assurer une victoire décisive, éclatante et sans appel du Oui lors du prochain référendum.

This article is written in a much more aggresive tone towards the ROC, in that it makes use of old tropes about building Canada on the back of Quebec, etc, etc, and it is much more clearly "independantist" view of the situation.  Yet it too casts sovereignty as a force for unification rather than separation--unification in the face of global American hegemony.  It calls for building the necessary inter-"nation" links for this.

Lastly, sovereignty is seen as part of the ending the emotional dependence of the ROC on Quebec, thus establishing a healthy relationship, as hinted in this Le Devoir article posted on the militant site Vigile:

De nos jours, cette phrase apparaît toutefois de moins en moins juste aux yeux de nombreux observateurs. En effet, grâce à un singulier alignement des planètes économique et identitaire, les deux grandes peurs du ROC (rest of Canada) («englobement» et «éclatement») semblent jugulées.

Dix ans après le «grand effroi» qui a traversé l'échine du ROC dans les mois qui ont précédé le référendum de 1995 sur la souveraineté, «les périls guettant le Canada semblent aujourd'hui bien minces», affirmait le chroniqueur du Globe and Mail Lawrence Martin le mois dernier. Président d'Environics, le célèbre sondeur Michael Adams, joint à Toronto, affirme que les dernières enquêtes d'opinion de cette firme démontrent clairement que «les Canadiens forment un peuple qui a surmonté sa mentalité coloniale pour développer une confiance forte et grandissante en lui-même».

Quel décalage par rapport aux années 90 ! En 1995, non seulement le Canada risquait d'éclater, l'État central croupissait sous les déficits et sa dette. Cette année-là, le Wall Street Journal avait évoqué «la faillite du Canada», rappelle Lawrence Martin. Le huard entamait alors sa chute qui allait le mener à son plancher de 63 ¢US. L'union monétaire avec les États-Unis apparaissait à l'époque comme «inévitable» aux yeux de plus d'un économiste.

This article holds that English Canada is no longer what it was in 1995--an unsure, still-colonial entity, but instead is developing into a nation as Quebec is a nation.  The implication is clear, at least for the Vigile people: the time is ripe to establish healthy relations between the two nations.  To build a "Canada" reflective of its historical reality.

I wrote at the beginning of this that I hoped to clarify, even as I disagree somewhat with the underlying philosophy, why it is not a contradiction nor evidence of stupidity and dishonesty on the part of Quebeckers to choose both Canada and a sovereign Quebec: the terms of reference for what "separation" means are quite different and are expressed in a way that is not accessible to the concepts of the majority community.  But I also know that it works the other way: Quebeckers often view this through rose-coloured glasses, not appreciating what would be lost if the Trudeauvian vision is thrown aside in resentment.  And it overestimates how well the rest of the country would view it, and misunderstands the feelings of the ROC for Quebec.  But I think it is more damaging for the ROC to misperceive Quebec in some ways, because it leads to a lot of unwarranted passion and anger; and people in the ROC, for better or for worse, have much less access to the materials that would help them understand Quebec and how to respond to it.

As for me, I respect the feelings of Quebeckers and others, but still think that the somewhat centralizing vision of Trudeau is the right way to go.  But who asked me?

Comments

[Ian Welsh]

Sovereingty association is a lot like saying "let's divorce but still live together."

And feelings run high - a lot of Quebecers don't understand that the attitude in many parts is "whatever, leave if you want. Stay if you want, but just make up your minds."

And people who don't think it could disintegrate into war haven't thought it through. Because what happens when the Indians and parts of Quebec coming running to Ottawa screaming that they don't want to be part of and independent Quebec - that they are Canadians? And the Governor General dissolves the government because the Prime Minister is from Quebec? And the Princess Pats and the VanDoos suddenly have to decide who they serve.

What a mess.

[Mandos]

Well, yes and no. Sovereignty-association is more like saying, "Lets live like the EU does." The EU is a very attractive compromise in some ways; it has rigid "federal" standards, in some ways stricter than Canada even, but members are free to implement as they see fit and retain the trappings of sovereignty and spend in the way they want to spend.

But the problem is that it gives Quebec a veto equal to a larger population. And that won't fly, as we've been discussing on Norman Specter's web site.

Funny that I should start posting on his web site when I so totally object to what he often says, as an aside. His site is the only conservative site I've come across in a long time where I can actually stomach the debate.

[verbatim]

Spector is an interesting character. I think he's one of the few conservatives (well, he's conservative from where I'm standing, anyway) who doesn't consistently sound like an ass to me. Watching him interact with Pia Shandel and Moe Sihota was excruciating, but mainly because they were such a terrible clashing mis-match of personality and intelligence levels.

Anyway, your post has answered some questions I've had for a long while about Separatisme. Interestingly, when I finally saw how the EU was shaping up, I thought it might be an interesting model for a reconstituted Canada. At some future time, of course.

BTW, Mandos, I hope you're planning on using your considerable eloquence and intellectual acumen for good, and not eeeevil. I suspect you will go far, young man.