Brett Thoms
Norway Bay July 21, 2022
This week THE EQUITY asked the candidates running to represent the riding of Pontiac in the next National Assembly about their stances on language, identity and federalism, vs. sovereignty, vs. nationalism in Quebec.
Given that each party has a fairly diverse perspective on these matters, every candidate was asked a unique set of questions.
Quebec in Canada
The first question however was posed to all candidates. It asked what defines their party’s general philosophy on Quebec’s relationship with Canada and where Quebec anglophones fit in with that relationship. Also they were asked: What defines a Quebecer’s identity?
Starting with the Quebec Liberal Party (QLP) incumbent MNA André Fortin he said: The Quebec Liberal Party is a federalist party, always has been, always will be. We believe Quebec is an important part of Canada. It’s a distinct and different part of the country in many ways, but it is a province within the Canadian system that we know. Anglophones are an important part of our Quebec history, our Quebec culture and our Quebec identity. They have helped build this province, and they continue to do so. And so we do have a responsibility as a government to anglophones, to English speaking Quebecers to protect their rights to defend their rights and to offer them quality services in this province.”
On who is a Quebecer, Fortin said that: “A Quebecer is anybody who . . .
lives in the province of Quebec regardless of their language, regardless of their religion, regardless of their race, regardless of their immigrant status in Quebec, or is anybody who lives in the province and is part of our community.”
The campaign of CAQ candidate Corinne Canuel-Jolicoeur responded to the question by writing: “The CAQ government strives to be a nationalist government promoting the interests of all Quebecers within Canada and maintaining an exemplary protection of the rights of the anglophone community. There are many facets to Quebecers’ identity but one of its main features remains the French language spoken by a majority of Quebecers in the only jurisdiction in North America where French is the first language of the majority.”
Québec solidaire (QS) candidate Mike Owen Sebagenzi responded to the question saying that:
“Canada’s institutions are not well equipped to move us to a better society, well equipped to move us to a better environment and are well equipped to move us to better public institutions. We also don’t have our own financial economic tools to get ourselves into a better economic situation. So we judge that in the medium or long term we need to eventually separate ourselves from Canada. And on the other hand, the English minority will have and should have their historical rights protected and they should still have access to services in their own language. They are Quebecers too, they are a part of Quebec, they built this nation with everybody in it and they shouldn’t get less adequate services because of the language they speak.”
Sebagenzi defined a Quebecer as essentially anyone who identifies as Quebecer.
The Conservative party of Quebec (CPQ) candidate Terrance Watters wrote: “The CPQ is for conserving Canada intact. [There has been] too much division over the last 60 years, it is time for both federalists and sovereigntists to bury the hatchet and move on. Pontiacers are not hostage to the PLQ anymore.”
Canadian party of Quebec (CaPQ) candidate Will Twolan wrote: “The CaPQ states that the Province of Quebec has been, is, and always will be an integral part of the Canadian nation-state. Quebec should be a leader in federal-provincial relations, with the Government of Quebec respecting the integrity of the Canadian Constitution, including formal recognition of the Constitution Act, 1982. Anglophones have worked side by side with their francophone brothers and sisters to build the province and indeed Canada. The CaPQ very much agrees with the late Quebec Premier René Lévesque’s basic definition of Quebecers: People who were either born or live in Quebec, and are connected by its cultural, linguistic and religious diversity. As such, CaPQ also opposes the type of nationalism promoted by the CAQ, Quebec Liberals, and the Parti conservateur du Québec, in favour of a bold, forward-looking, federalist vision of Quebec to encourage a renaissance that makes our province a major economic, cultural, and linguistic rights hub of Canada.”
The Green Party of Quebec (GPQ) candidate Pierre Cyr said : “The GPQ is a federalist party and believes that Quebec and all the provinces should be encouraged to shine with their own distinctions. The federal government should encourage and value our cultural diversity across the country. Of course, Quebec has a specific identity as well as people from the Maritimes or out west in Alberta. These identities are to be looked at positively and as a plus value for Canada. The Quebec government should be open minded to the anglophones community.”
Federalism, nationalism and sovereignty
Going further on their stance on federalism, nationalism and sovereignty, the parties all further elaborated on their precise position.
Starting with the QS, Sebagenzi described how his party’s orientation towards sovereignty for Quebec differed from that of the PQ.
“We are different from the PQ because we don’t want to impose a referendum on Quebecers that will force them eventually to vote on a vague idea of what independence is,” explained Sebagenzi. “We judge it is better to offer the opportunity to Quebecers to build their own constitution, to write it to shape it in a democratic way, and that we will vote on that constitution.”
The GPQ offered a vision of a federalism where Quebec remains in Canada but is given more powers from the Canadian government over immigration, health care, education and environmental issues, along with every other province.
Canuel-Jolicoeur of the CAQ wrote that. “The nationalist thrust pursued by the CAQ government is aimed at providing the best living conditions possible to all Quebecers in a context of improving how Canada functions with its jurisdictional responsibilities and sharing of competencies rather than dismantling it.”
Two of the federalist parties in the race, both the CaPQ and the QLP were asked to elaborate on if federalism is still as relevant as a concept in Quebec politics given the CAQ’s claims that its rise has put an end to the old divide.
Twolan of the CaPQ said that federalism is still highly relevant today.
“Although he has fulfilled his pledge for a moratorium on separation referendums, Mr. Legault’s term in office has revealed a nefarious vision for Quebec within Canada: authoritarian, nationalistic, and highly autonomist.
Fortin of QLP echoed this sentiment, saying: “It’s a nice claim by the CAQ, but there’s still 30 some per cent of Quebecers in every poll saying they would vote for an independent Quebec. There is absolutely nothing wrong, or shameful in saying that we are proud Canadians. It’s the way a lot of people in this province feel is the way a lot of people in this area feel and I’m proud to have a position that is in line with that of the people of the Pontiac.”
However, how that federalism is expressed is different between the two parties. When asked if the federal government should play a greater role in defending Quebec’s minorities, Fortin said that it has a role to play, but he emphasized the role of the courts through challenges of Bills 96 and Bill 21 by community groups.
“I don’t encourage the federal government to to look at or to intervene in these policies, ‘’ said Fortin, alluding to both Bill 96 and Bill 21.
Twolan of the CaPQ on the other hand responded: “ When Quebec governments pass immoral and illegitimate laws like Bill 96, Bill 21 and Bill 40, it’s the Government of Canada’s duty to step in with the political, legal, and financial levers at its disposal. Are Quebec’s linguistic, religious and cultural minorities not Canadian citizens with full rights under the Canadian Constitution?”
Bill 96
All the parties were then asked to elaborate on their position on Bill 96.
Canuel-Jolicoeur’s campaign resolutely stood by Bill 96, writing:
“Some critics of Bill 96 have been quick to demonize Bill 96 whose objective is to protect and promote the French language which remains under steady and constant threat given the demographics of North America, as recently demonstrated by Statistics Canada. Protecting and promoting French is carried out through Bill 96 while fully protecting the rights of the anglophone community and their institutions and a CAQ government commitment to firmly ensure the protection of those rights.”
When asked whether the CAQ would consider amending Bill 96 to address concerns of the anglophone community, Canuel-Jolicoeurs response rejected any need to reform the legislation.
Her campaign also said there is no need to modulate its linguistic policy based on regional conditions.
QS candidate Sebagenzi said that certain aspects of Bill 96 needed to be amended, while the ultimate aim of protecting the French language remained necessary. The problems Sebagenzi has with the bill include:
“There’s no recognition of Indigenous languages and linguistic rights in the bill. And there’s also a lot of problems in the way it forces people to learn French. We can think about the amendment to impose exams on young college students, English colleges, so those things we wouldn’t be open to. But it’s a minority of articles that are problematic among the largest bill, which has a lot of things in it. So we would amend those and we would mainly change the way we speak about language and the way you protect French here in Quebec. The current government likes to blame immigrants and English minorities, and that’s a real problem because it creates a climate of fear of polarization.”
While the QS would not be open to amending many parts of the bill that concerns anglophone rights groups in the province like those surrounding document translation or court access, he said he would be open to making linguistic policy variable by region.
“French isn’t declining in Shawville, it’s an anglo majority town that was built by people there over decades, ‘’ said Sebagenzi. “It’s not like Montreal, where you have this economic pressure that leads people to speak English instead of French. The issues are different in Shawville and Montreal and the solutions shouldn’t be the same.”
Watters, the CPQ candidate wrote that “The CPQ is always there for everyone and not only for the French speaking majority. The CPQ is the only major party that will repeal Bill 96 on October 4 if elected. The Liberals will only modify it after being against-in favor-and against at the end.”
Cyr, the GPQ candidate said that he would stand up to any “incoherence” within Bill 96 or Bill 21 if elected.
Fortin of the QLP said that while repealing legislation may be an appealing concept, it isn’t really how legislatures work. He said the negative parts of Bill 96 could be identified and be removed should the QLP form government.
“We would remove the notwithstanding clause from Bill 96 because the notwithstanding clause basically allows Bill 96 to circumvent the Canadian Charter of Rights or the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We would remove anything to do with healthcare because healthcare is always something that you should be able to access in your language and for which you need to understand every detail of what is prescribed or suggested to you. We would remove the cap from the CAQ imposed cap on the number of students that an English CEGEP can welcome. We would eliminate the six months requirement for immigrants to learn French. We would ensure that we reinstate the possibility for any Quebecers to have access to courts in their language. We will also remove the search and seizure without mandate provisions and take a complete look at all of the impacts of Bill 96 on our businesses and economy and make the necessary changes.”
Twolan of the CaPQ on the other hand expressed skepticism regarding the QLP’s position on Bill 96, pointing out that they voted for the legislation four times during early readings in the National Assembly. He furthermore stated that the CaPQ is the only party fully committed to both repealing Bill 96 and Bill 21, with both the QLPs and CPQ position amounting to keeping the bills main elements intact.
Immigration and further efforts to advance French
Finally the parties were given a chance to express their views on immigration and the further measures to protect the French language in Quebec.
When asked for specifics on their immigration program, Watters of the CPQ wrote: “The protection of the French language is connected with immigration. I was walking this Sunday morning at the Terry Fox Run with an immigrant that just told me he could not get French classes anymore, as the government cut the budget. He wants to learn French and he can’t. That’s exactly what CPQ will correct.”
According to Sebagenzi, QS aims to invest $230 million in programs to help immigrants and non francophones learn French for the workplace. Sebagenzi also said the QS would work to promote the French language through culture, including allowing immigrants $200 in cultural tickets to attend things like museums and cultural festivals. “So sharing French instead of imposing it, that’s our vision at QS,” said Sebagenzi.
QS would also regionalize immigration, with Sebagenzi saying: “We want to encourage between 50,000 and 80,000 immigrants. But we also want to ask different regions what are their capacities to take care of new immigrants, what are their needs regarding the region, and adapt the levels of migrants based on that capacity.”
Canuel-Jolicoeur’s campaign did not respond to questions about immigration but wrote that in regards to further measures protecting French: “A Quebec government, including of course that of the CAQ, bears the special responsibility of ensuring the future of the French language in the province and will occasionally implement measures, whenever necessary, to achieve this objective. Yet, promoting the French language and taking commensurate measures is fully compatible with ensuring the protection of the rights of the anglophone community.”
Cyr of the GPQ wrote that: “The GPQ has no target for immigration rate and we believe that the process should be more oriented on the richness of what immigrants bring to our society and culture and also the quality of life and future we are offering them.”
Twolan of the CaPQ wrote that the party is opposed to all restrictive and coercive legislation meant to advance the French language. The CaPQ advocates for official bilingualism in the province. As positive measures to promote the French language, Twolan wrote that “The party supports sound teaching methods, French immersion/intensive programs for English speakers, and any government legislation that positively addresses Quebec’s high illiteracy and high school dropout rates.” He also advocated for a policy that would allow 10 per cent anglophone immigration into Quebec to replace aging English speaking communities.
Fortin of the QLP said that: “Right now, the way Premier Legault speaks of non Francophone immigrants and the way he speaks of anglophones is divisive and detrimental to our social cohesion in the province and our living together. Protecting and promoting the French language is about promoting Quebec culture, promoting Quebec music, promoting Quebec arts and making available tools for people who want to learn the language to do so. The government had agreed to our suggestion in Bill 96 to provide free French classes for every Quebecer who wants them. Yet, those classes are still unavailable in our region. That is a positive way to encourage people to learn the language.”
For many of the PQ’s stances on these matters, please refer to this week’s issue ot THE EQUITY Interview conducted with PQ Pontiac Candidate Jolaine Paradis-Châteauneuf.
Some candidates provided more information than we could not fit in the article.
Next week will be THE EQUITY’s last edition before the election, and we plan to ask questions on municipal government and local economic development, as well as round up our coverage of the election.
