Scribble Live
Published
Last updated
0 comments
Discussion: Why the Quebec Question still matters
Irvin Studin, Louise Arbour and Alexandre Cloutier took reader questions
- Why does the Quebec Question still matter?
That's the question U of T's Irvin Studin poses in an op-ed Tuesday. While other countries continue to look to the Canadian example of using federalism to manage secessionism, the issue has faded from the heart of Canadian public life.
"While Canada has progressed into this new century," he says, "the law schools have ceased to produce great young scholars of federalism, prime minister-chaired first ministers conferences no longer take place, and a new coterie of politicians – at all levels of government – has moved to the fore with precious little familiarity with, immersion in, and instinct for the Quebec question and its peculiar nuances."
Mr. Studin will take reader questions Tuesday at 12:30 p.m. ET, joined by former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour and Parti Québécois MNA Alexandre Cloutier. They will all be taking time to chat between sessions at The Quebec Question for the Next Generation, a conference being co-sponsored by the University of Toronto's School of Public Policy and Governance and the University of Quebec at Montreal: quebecquestionconference.ca
For a mobile version of this discussion, click here: scribblelive.mobi
Follow the links below for more bio information about our panelists.
Irvin Studin: globalbrief.ca
Louise Arbour: www.crisisgroup.org
Alexandre Cloutier: quebecquestionconference.ca - Here's a link to Irvin Studin's piece: www.theglobeandmail.com
- Hi, I'm Guy Nicholson, an editor with The Globe's Commentary section.
Mr. Studin, Ms. Arbour and Mr. Cloutier will be with us from 12:30 p.m. to about 1:00 p.m. Readers, feel free to submit questions now or to jump in after the discussion begins. - If you're interested in following the conference our panelists are attending, try the School of Public Policy and Governance's Twitter feed: twitter.com
(The Twitter handle is SPPG_UofT) - Our panelists will be with us momentarily. It's a short discussion, readers, so please submit your questions early.
- OK, Mr. Studin, Ms. Arbour and Mr. Cloutier are with us now, thank you all for coming today. While we wait for readers to chime in, I'll start with a question.
Some Canadians see an alternate interpretation of Mr. Studin's column, in which an entire generation came of age with "the Question," went to war over it and gradually either found answers, gave up the fight or faded into irrelevance. Is it not possible that the Quebec Question has already been answered? - The Quebec Question will matter as long as we have a federal government willing to subsidize the province of Quebec at the expense of the rest of Canada, and Ontario in particular. In fact, I'd be willing to be a mortgage payment that if a referedum was held in the ROC, Quebec would be kicked out. How do you juxtapose this sentiment (and I would argue reality, with all due respect) with your thesis? There's a reason why no one has come forward as a leader on this topic, Canadians are just sick and tired of talking and dealing with Quebec.
- Mr. Studin, you rightly point out that personal and professional relationships between emerging political actors in Quebec and the RoC are lacking. And I agree that mutual understanding through these types of relationships can only help to enhance the Canadian project. However, how do you propose we foster these relationships? Is it possible that decades of butting heads over the Quebec question is what nurtured the relationships of the late 20th century to begin with?
- If the "Quebec Question" is so clearly critical, and if its ignorance can lead to such incompetence, why has it been largely ignored outside of Quebec? Are there good reasons for this, beyond the "don't rock the boat" approach to public policy? What do we risk by stirring the quagmire that is Quebec? Does such an undertaking, assuming it is in inherently federalist, work against other emerging and helpful federalist or internationalist trends?
- Where do you stand on banning the separatist parties Parti Québécois, Bloc Québécois, and any other separatist political party from ever forming in Canada?
- Quebeckers have abandoned the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and now appear to be recanting their flirtation with the NDP. … what is the future of Quebeckers' engagement in national politics?
- The real question should be... What does Canada want??? Question: Voulez-vous que le Québec soit formellement reconnu comme nation dans la constitution. Je ne vous laisse pas deviner: en noir, c'est non !
www2.lactualite.com
In the mean time the chasm is growing between Canada and Québec!!!! La décanadianisation du Québec s’accélère!
www2.lactualite.com - Irvin Studin here. If the Quebec Question were answered, as the intervenor wagers, then I might ask: which question is that? And more importantly, how would we be able to recognize the answer? The diagnostique behind the big conference today is that there is patent silence on all sides on the Question.
- Irvin Studin here to Geoff from Guelph: indeed, I think we can foster relationships between Quebecois and Canadians in the ROC. These relationships across linguistic and cultural frontiers in Canada make our national public life interesting, even if complex and fraught.
- To Scott Yee: I think we have to accept diversity of opinion, even though sometimes it may hurt. If there is an opinion we do not agree with, we are still entitled to put our own opinion forward. But that's the essence of democracy and respect for fundamental rights.
- Irvin Studin here for Dylan M (my old student, I think!): good question. The Quebec question has been ignored for reasons of strategic efficacy at the political level, and cultural incuriosity at the personal level. The former reason is perhaps understandable (although I'd ask, how does silence constitute strategy over time, if we cannot judge what the other thinks or wants--or who he/she is). The latter reason is unacceptable in a globalized world.
- Irvin, from your column I took the question to be about "Quebec's fate (within or without Canada)." And yes, if it's an important question, how would we know when it's answered?
- Thanks, Prof Studin. It is, indeed, your old student!
- What is the "Next Generation" saying about the Question these days, both in Quebec and in the rest of Canada?
- Bonjour Laurent: Regarding what Canada "wants", we have to clearly define what is Canada, and what is a Canadian? Quebec is still Canada, and Quebecois are still Canadian. These are more than legal-constitutional truths; they are emotive and practical. Now the point is: let's discuss...
- Does the nature of our federation require us to ponder the Quebec question in perpetuity?
- To Guy: I don't know for certain what the answer to the Quebec question (to be framed, of course!) is, or if there is an "answer", for that matter. Some 'games' are infinite..., but make life interesting. But the point is that a new generation is coming to the fore that neither knows how to ask the question nor is able to divine possible answers...
- To Dylan Marando: To your question regarding the Quebec Question outside of Quebec, I think the federal government is focusing on other problems. They are ignoring the reality that sovereignty has important support in Quebec. Some may think that the defeat of the Bloc Quebecois is an expression of the weaknesses of the movement, but it's not the case.
- I didn't know if I was allowed to reply or not to Alexandre Cloutier: Normally I would agree with you, expect the PQ & the BQ want to break up the country. Everybody can feel and think what they like, but it is different when a party wishes to break up the country. If you do not wish to live in Canada, then move to the country of your choice.
- Louise arbour here, talking to Guy Nicholson. The assumption here is that "Quebec's fate" and Canada's fate are inevitably interlinked. But i don't think the "question" is one that can be answered, at least not with any finality. Countires are work in progress.
- I do agree with you Mr. Studin. But how do we go about creating these relationships? Were the past relationships of this sort formed only by necessity?
- For A.M.: does the nature of the fed'n require us to ponder the Quebec question in perpetuity? Perhaps... I hope to live long enough to tell! But seriously, Canada is the luckiest country on Earth--period. If the intelligent treatment, on all sides, of the Quebec question, in perpetuity or over a long period, is the price of preserving our good geopolitical luck, then what's wrong with paying that price?
- Has the stubborn economic recession played a role in the decline of QC vs ROC debates? Perhaps other groups dominate the debate eg boomers vs young, 1% vs 99%? etc...
- To Sheridan: There are many new leaders in Quebec dedicated to the sovereigntist movement. It's not about any resentment for the rest of Canada, it's more about expressing our diversity and culture in our own country. We have a new approach. We don't see having more power from Ottawa as an opposition to sovereignty. But of course, sovereignty is still our main goal.
- Geoff from Guelph: start with language. French-English bilingualism is a minimum in our country, period. It is absurd that younger Canadians cannot master both tongues--and therefore are not able to read each other's papers and literature, and to follow each other's TV and radio shows. Absurd. We are in our own national mental cage. By now, if we were strategic as a country, we would have been speaking English and French as a bare minimum, and one or two more tongues to boot. The EU is operating in 23 languages...
- If we were to call the bluff of those who want to separate; explain what is at stake, explain that they will no longer have a Canadian passport, use Canadian currency and have their land partitioned to reflect the territorial aspirations of the First Nations, do you really believe they will want to separate?
- SP from QC: The economic debate is important, but the QC question is more long-standing. It is a generational and multi-generational issue... We have plenty of economists to deal with economic challenges, but very few new Quebec Question thinkers and players of quality to be able to animate this important strand of Canadian public life for the foreseeable future.
- To SP from QC: I would add that the sovereigntists are not in power in Quebec, and that we have a Liberal government in Quebec that is not too keen in claiming Quebec's place.
- A reminder that this discussion runs until 1 p.m. -- if you have questions for our panelists, please submit them soonest.
- If Canadian history courses (not just 1) would be mandatory all across the country, bigotry would be greatly reduced and a sense of pride based on genuine knowledge of 'the two solitudes' would ensue.
- To RS on calling the bluff of those who wish to separate: history is littered with the corpses of once great political enterprises that died on the strength of folly or indifference.
- Would you agree that the Quebec question has largely evolved around the federal government's inability to engage Quebec in a way that responds to their desires and aspirations (with the possible exception of Meech Lk, which failed)? If so, is this at all possible given the balance of power with the ROC?
- @CGC But who would write the curricula? therein lies the problem
- To Mr Studin, a comment... I am from Quebec and I must say that the new generation of Québécois is way past the hate-anger over the "maudits anglais" as SOME of the old generation may have been. But reading your periodicals, I always see comments filled with hate and incomprehension over Quebec and those comments come as well from experienced journalists. How do you see the role of the medias in the re-establishing of the whole relationship between Canada and Quebec ?
- As an anglophone law student at Ulaval in Quebec city I feel that I have some great insight into the Québec question. Notably, there is still a feeling of resentment towards the Canadian (British) government's long history of shoving around the French population. I.e. The Durham report, Charlottetown Accord and the so called imposition of the Charter by Trudeau an co. Moving forward, I believe that constitutionally recognizing Québec as a distinct society would be the perfect remedy to calm lingering separatist movements and to finally-legally- unite Québec with the rest of the country. Can this ever be achieved and do you think it would work?
- After the 1995 referendum, Qc blamed immigrants for voting 'non' to separation. Do you think that new canadians will a) understand, b) care about the Question of Quebec since no one seems to include them in this discussion?
- For CGC on decreasing prejudice via education: true, but education is with the provinces, and each province has its own internal narrative, and a slightly different take on the genesis and vocation of the larger federation. This is amplified in Quebec. We have to understand their pedagogy and the birth stories they tell, and they need to better understand those in other provinces. Otherwise, we are speaking from different scripts altogether.
- To Ron: You probably know that Quebec politics are quite hard to predict-- I think Quebecers are starting to realize that the NDP is not exactly what they expected. Polls show that the BQ is rising again.
- @CGC if you remembered your Canadian history classes you would know that education is a provincial thing
- To AM: great question. New Canadians must understand the QC question, and the QC question will, by increments only, change to meet the flowing identity of Canada--including Quebec.
- The real question is why should Canada be saved? If Quebec wants to leave what's the problem?
- Can we really engage with the Quebec question without having a discussion on the fate of francophone minority communities in the rest of Canada? It's what is happening here right now...
- If there was no Québec question, then we would have an Alberta question or something else. There is always some tension within any country, especially a vast federation like ours.
- "the law schools have ceased to produce great young scholars of federalism, prime minister-chaired first ministers conferences no longer take place, and a new coterie of politicians – at all levels of government – has moved to the fore with precious little familiarity with, immersion in, and instinct for the Quebec question and its peculiar nuances."
All of Canada, including Quebec of course, appears to have ceased producing great young scholars of federalism. I don’t think it the sole responsibility of law schools, rather it is the responsibility of our ourselves, our communities, our families, to entice our youth to participate in our federal politics.
If we are without familiarity and instinct for the Quebec question it is because we’ve missed out on opportunity of discussions throughout our lives. At the dinner table, at town hall meetings, inside our high schools. We should not be entrusting such important debates to only law schools. Each of us must take our responsibilities for federalism seriously. - To AM: That was a mistake. We must all share the defeat. Everyone should feel welcome in the Quebec nation. We have to make sure it's a project based on common values.
- to U Laval: I admire your faith that legal, even constitutional, documents can bring finality to questions of identity, culture etc...
- For Bob: Wrong, absolutely. The onus is on those who wish to destroy a complex and fortunate and successful country like Canada to explain themselves.
- Ms. Arbour, what have you learned from observing the ex-Yugo case that has impacted your thinking on Canada?
- We're out of time today -- thanks to Irvin Studin, Louise Arbour and Alexandre Cloutier for joining us in the middle of a busy conference day.
Again, if you've joined us late and haven't yet read Mr. Studin's op-ed piece in today's Globe, you can find it here: www.theglobeandmail.com
