Gilles Duceppe: Coming to a city near you

Sometimes, “it’d be way easier if Quebec wasn’t around”

by Philippe Gohier on Saturday, April 10, 2010 3:32pm - 98 Comments

Twenty years after the Meech Lake negotiations collapsed, leaving Quebec as the only province without its signature at the bottom of the Constitution, Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe is still looking for someone—anyone—in the rest of Canada who’s still interested in talking about Quebec’s plight.

“Canada hasn’t made any offers” that would entice Quebec to sign on to the Constitution, Duceppe said in an interview with Macleans.ca, “and I don’t think any are coming.” And that’s true, he adds, no matter what the federal government looks like. “When there’s a majority government in Canada, they say ‘we have a mandate and it’s to not make any offers.’ When it’s a minority government, they say ‘we’re not in a position to make an offer.’ We’re forced to conclude, then, that Canada is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.”

So why is Duceppe flying across the country, meeting with students, teachers, think-tanks and other groups if the only solution to Canada’s Constitutional woes is independence for Quebec? It isn’t entirely clear, though he does appear keen to wrap Quebec nationalism in kinder, gentler terms—terms that appeal to Canadians’ innate nationalism as much as much as that of Quebecers.

The Bloc leader readily admits Quebec plays a large role in the perpetual holding pattern in which Ottawa finds itself when it comes to sweeping institutional reforms. In fact, his Canadian tour, his first since 2005, is explicitly motivated by a desire to remind people of it. “Take Senate reform, for example,” he says. “It’d be way easier to do if Quebec wasn’t around.” And with the prospects of Canadians suddenly developing an appetite for the Constitutional reforms residing somewhere between slim and none, Duceppe says the Bloc’s role in Parliament will continue to be at least partly an obstructionist one. “We have to be there,” he says, “to fight the setbacks Quebec is subjected to in the Canadian federation.”

For what it’s worth, some Canadians appear to have come to the same conclusion as Duceppe—that Canada and Quebec would both be better off without each other—though it may not be for the relatively enlightened reasons Duceppe has in mind. According to an unusual poll by Léger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies that looked into Canadians’ attitudes toward Quebec’s sovereigntist aspirations, one in six English Canadians (15 per cent) is comfortable with the idea of waving the province goodbye. Support for Quebec’s departure was highest in Alberta (26 per cent) and Manitoba and Saskatchewan (22 per cent), the two areas (the poll treats Manitoba and Saskatchewan as one region) where official bilingualism is least popular, suggesting a hardening of attitudes against Ottawa’s languages policy rather than a new-found love for tiny nation-states.

Sovereigntists themselves have long had an uneven relationship with Francophone communities outside Quebec. During a speech in Windsor in 1969, PQ founder René Lévesque referred to the Francophone minority in English Canada as “dead ducks”; the stake was driven even further by Quebec novelist Yves Beauchemin in 1990, when he said Francophones outside Quebec were little more than “warm corpses.” Duceppe, however, says he’s made outreach to Francophone and Acadian groups a priority as Bloc leader and is quick to dismiss suggestions Quebec’s departure from Canada would have ill effects on either group. “People who say that are using Francophones and Acadians as cannon fodder,” he says.

With six consecutive electoral majorities in the province, the Bloc isn’t anywhere near the extinction that’s so often predicted for it. That said, as Duceppe himself points out, it’s been left in the lurch a bit by Canadians’ disinterest in addressing the issues so dear to sovereigntists. “I worked long enough as a union negotiator,” he says when asked what Quebec would want out of new Constitutional talks, “to know you don’t negotiate with yourself.” The Bloc leader may well find himself a rhetorical sparring partner by the time his six-city tour is done (stops in Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver remain). But if the “warm” and “respectful” receptions he says he’s received so far are any indication, he probably shouldn’t get his hopes up.

Bookmark and Share
  • hosertohoosier

    There are many reasons English Canadians should fight against Quebec separatism:
    1. At the international stage, Canada gets a modicum of representation as a result of the size of our economy – most importantly we are a member of the G-7. Without Quebec we (and Quebec) would lose a great deal of international leverage.

    2. Secession would be horrible for Anglo minorities in Quebec. They benefit from living in a country that recognizes English as a national language. Not to mention allophones that are also protected by some of the collectivist tendencies of Quebec.

    3. While Quebec gets more than its fair share of public money, the same could be said of the Maritimes or the north. However that money is peanuts compared to the advantages of economic integration between Quebec and the ROC, as well as the economies of scale afforded by having a large national economy. Could "sovereignty-association" maintain the flow of goods as well as national unity? Surely the answer is no. Free trade requires more than the absence of protectionism, it also requires policy coordination across borders. For instance, the US was able to pass their "buy America" act despite NAFTA. We have tangible evidence of this in the movement of corporate HQ's from Montreal to Toronto, merely at the risk of secession.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/FVerhoeven FVerhoeven

      Of course, separation for the province of Quebec would provide them with a negative outcome. But what irks me is the fact that by staying within Canada, Quebec sees this need for a continuous stranglehold onto Canadian politics. Nothing of significance can be accomplished in this country because no matter how you slice it, the Quebec voice will always want to stand in the way of trying to accomplish something big for Canada.

      And I think that particular attitude must be stopped once and for all. Why for decades, are we merely mulling over the surface regarding this topic of Quebec versus Canada? Why can't we deal with some fundamentals here instead?

      • guest

        Call Quebec's bluff as Ignatieff suggested when he was in Harward. Now, of course, he playing a different tunes as Harper does. It boils down to a very simple matter: votes. Hopefully, with additional 30 seats for Ontario, Alberta and BC Quebec would soon be weakened soon. Quebec is a pain in the neck. They have to decide if they stay or go so that Canada moves on.

        • FVerhoeven

          Yes, it boils down to votes, exactly.

          But I wonder why the voter is taken in so readily for instance when Harper makes some suggestions as to rectify some of the imbalance (for instance by doing away with party subsidies, thereby eliminating the BQ subsidies) and all he gets is a slap in the face from the opposition parties, the media and the academics alike.

          What does it take in this country to be open about some pretty basic imbalances existing? You really think Harper will try and do anything of significance regarding this Quebec/Canadian imbalance, if all he gets is severe criticism for his actions? Who would want to go into a defeat by doing that: trying to rectify an imbalance but getting turfed out of office for doing it!

          • Kat

            Eliminating parties subsidies was wrong, very partisan ( and I am a Conservative voter, so far). Harper was rightly criticised for that as well as for arts cuts. It was small and petty in arts cuts, and it’s wrong to allow big business to buy its influence by eliminating parties subsidies.

            You are right, nobody now thinks that Harper "will try and do anything of significance regarding this Quebec/Canadian imbalance". In fact, he has made the "asymmetry" grotesque with obscene equalisation bribes in hope of buying Quebecois votes. All in vain.

            Why are worried about the Opposition howls? It’s Canadians who elect the government, not the Opposition.

  • meany

    I think Duceppe has it all backwards. I don't know if it's just English Canada that's not engaging in the debate, it's also Francophone Quebecers that aren't engaging in that debate. This whole separation thing is very tiresome. People are more concerned about the economy and healthcare these days. Make your cross country tour about THAT, Mssr D!

    The only thing this tour will accomplish is bring out the hot heads on every side and stir up a fight. But I suppose that's probably the whole point of the exercise.

  • Oliver

    It's topics like these that show the true colour of Canadians.
    Now this is the kind of topic where Steyn could make a valid argument about "canadian brand tolerance being two-faced"

  • Jimmy

    Q: what has Quebec contributed to Canada in return for billions and billions in transfer payments.

    A: Celine Dion

  • http://mebcm.blogspot.com Chris Martel

    Being one of those Quebecers, I knew there were some bigots in my local tribe. But I did not know there was worst in our civilised country. Forums like this one should serve another purpose than to ventilate old anti-Quebec/anti-Canada burned clichés. One word, pitty.

    Our cultural conundrum resides in one particular problem: We unfortunately still have in Canada many people who can’t accept that people can have multiple identities other than theirs. (ex.: PQ hardliners who see the English as evil. Rednecks arguing that French is a dead and useless anyway.). I have many identities myself, Québécois, Canadian, francophone, North American, Laurentian, Montrealer, Nordique!

    I still have hope though because Canada is still a young nation and as long as its provides me the opportunity to live my multiple identities I’d be happy!

  • Greg

    Yea, Chris, it always comes to this from “enlightened” francophones: we have some bigots in our tribe for sure, but, oh boy, Anglos are much much worse.

    Why are we worse? For resisting unfair bilingualism policy that applies only to English Canada? We want to be masters in our own house, too. Instead of belittling Anglos for the same desire, let’s work together to solve this cultural conundrum. Perhaps, we already know the solution: TERRITORIAL BILINGUALISM. You go to Quebec and you enjoy your Quebecois identity. In English Canada, enjoy being Anglo. In New Brunswick, be both. Go to NWT and you are Nordic! Is not it wonderful?

  • Sébastien

    Je serais fier d'être canadien si vous mettiez autant d'énergie à comprendre "what Québec wants"
    mais je dois me résoudre à cette phrase de Winston Churchill cité par Bernard Landry : "Their is no gift between nations".

  • Guest

    There are always “useful idiots” who jump over themselves to please somebody even at their own expense.

    Laurendeau (editor of Le Devoir and later appointed head of the B&B Commission) only wanted increased participation of francophones in federal government. However, in 1963, when Liberals came to power, Prime Minister Pearson proposed terms of reference for the royal commission which were much wider than those suggested by Laurendeau.

    "The terms of reference were deceptive…The Commissioners felt they had been called upon to REFASHION the state, and not just its framework but its FOUNDATIONS“, John T. Saywell, historian.

    According to Patricia Smart (distinguished research professor of French at Carleton University) Lester Pearson's motives were political:
    "Then in opposition, the Liberals seized on the idea, partly as a means of recapturing the Quebec vote lost to Diefenbaker in 1957…”.
    http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/pam_archives/p…

  • Guest
  • http://gilles-duceppe-treason-tour-2010.blogspot.com/ Kathleen Moore

    http://gilles-duceppe-treason-tour-2010.blogspot.com/
    I have updated my Blog, LIAR! LIAR! with a NEWS FILE on DUCEPPE's 2010 CANADA TOUR. Duceppe's current efforts to dismantle Canada by seditiously urging provinces other than Quebec to "secede" proves what I said 2 years ago in my video WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING — the whole point of the treasonous Clarity Act is to dismantle ALL of Canada, not just take Quebec out — and the hidden purpose is North American Union.

  • JFK
  • David

    What Canada what to Quebec, that is the real question ? Nuke us ?

    I just see a bunch of racist comment againt people of Quebec ?

    What is you solution to this problem ?

  • Émile Pascal

    Le Québec a besoin de se séparer. Le Québec a besoin de beaucoup plus et le Canada pense déja qu'ils en offrent trop pour eux. moi je veux garder la langue française en vie et si on reste dans le systeme fédéral, on ne pourra pas la protéger. Vive le Québec libre!

From Macleans