André Pratte, ed. Reconquering Canada: Quebec Federalists Speak Up for Change

I finished reading Reconquering Canada a few weeks ago, and have been slow to get a full review posted. As I mentioned in this earlier post, the translation work by Patrick Watson is spotty. Indeed, editor Pratte might have done well to proofread the translation of his own essay, which contains the following clunker in the English version:

No one other than Louis-Joseph Papineau termed the French regime an “arbitrary and aggressive government and declared that under the English “the rule of law had given way to violence.”

This seems like an odd passage to include in what is otherwise a generally pro-Canada piece. Indeed, the original French reads:

Nul autre que Louis-Joseph Papineau a qualifié le Régime français de gouvernement « arbitraire et agressif » et estime que sous les Anglais, « Le règne de la loi a succédé à celui de la violence. »

Ah, so the reign of law was the successor of that of violence. That makes more sense!

But enough about the translation, what about the content. Like all edited collections, it is a mixed bag, with some particularly strong contributions, some rehashing of arguments made elsewhere, and some weaker entries. Pratte attempted to include federalists of many political stripes, including Liberals, Conservatives and Adéquistes. There are economists, journalists, politicians, businessmen and yes, even an astronaut. The fourteen authors each defend federalism in various ways, and emphasize the high degree of flexibility and decentralization of the Canadian federation.

One of the strongest entries in the collection is constitutional law professor Jean Leclair’s systematic dissection of the myth of a unilaterally centralizing Canada. Leclair tears a strip off of Eugénie Brouillet’s contention that the federal government and Supreme Court have systematically centralized the federation. Drawing on extensive evidence from court decisions, he demonstrates how balanced the Canadian courts have been in their decision-making, and points out that in the Ford decision on Quebec’s sign law, much-derided by separatists, it was not the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that was used to strike down the legislation, but Quebec’s own Charter of Rights! Leclair also, rightly, points out the diversity of English-speaking Canada, noting that the residents of the other provinces do not all want to be Ontarians!

Another somewhat comforting contribution is that of Quebec’s Liberal Intergovernmental Affairs minister, Benoît Pelletier. While Pelletier does call for some additional decentralization of the federation and recognition for Quebec, he does observe that most Quebeckers do willingly identify with Canada, and embrace its core values, including that of federalism (80), even if they don’t always consciously recognize it. I did, however, laugh out loud at Pelletier’s characterization of “culture” as a “relatively objective” factor which composes a nation, alongside recognized territory, language(s), religious assemblies and traditions.

Pratte’s own essay is a shorter, somewhat distilled version of his excellent book “Aux pays des merveilles”, which dissects the major sovereignist myths. He calls for a greater recognition of the strengths of Canadian federalism, and of the contributions of the British and English-Canadians to Quebec’s history. Crucially, he observes that a refusal to compromise – so often demonstrated by Quebec’s political leaders – is unacceptable in a federation.

The remainder of the collection contains some solid essays, including Marc Garneau’s discussion of the importance of collaboration and working within the widest pool possible for scientific and technological research, and Mathieu Laberge’s optimistic musings on the potential for the children of Bill 101 - born into a thriving francophone-dominated Quebec – to move past the old constitutional and national battles anchored in past grievances. However, there is no single essay in this collection which stands out as particularly inspiring or profoundly perspective-altering. It is a good primer on the current state of Quebec federalist thought, and from that perspective is valuable reading for English-speakers seeking to engage in new dialogue with their Quebec francophone counterparts. However, to my mind, this is a collection primarily aimed at francophone Quebecers, and intended to be read in French. From that perspective, Aux pays des merveilles is a stronger piece of writing and more focussed on its subject matter.

Recommend this Post

Don't add, just translate!

Inspired by a thought-provoking little column today by Chantal Hébert about the ongoing failure of Quebec politics to transcend the grievance game, I have finally picked up my copy of André Pratte's edited collection Reconquering Canada: Quebec Federalists Speak Up For Change. As it happens, I also own the French version, published as Reconquérir le Canada: Un nouveau projet pour la nation québécoise. I'm hoping to have a review up at some point in the future. However, being an occasionally lazy reader (and fighting a cold, although that's not really my excuse), I'm reading the English translation. The translator is Patrick Watson, a long-time writer, director, and broadcaster perhaps best known for his work with the CBC.

While reading the first article, by Daniel Fournier, I came across the following passage:

Whether it was the Manitoba Schools Question of 1890, which created publicly funded separate schools for French and English students, or the Manitoba Language Question in the 1980s, which required all provincial laws and legislative documents to be translated into French, French Canadians generally, and French Quebeckers in particular, have been wary of attempts by some of their fellow-citizens to shape Canada in their own image.

I found this rather startling, since the Manitoba Schools Question of 1890 did not create publicly funded separate schools - it abolished them, and only permitted religious instruction after regular school hours - and only allowed French language instruction in a limited capacity until this too was eliminated in 1916. I was questioning Fournier's history, and indeed the rest of his argument. But then I turned to the original French, which reads as follows:

Que ce soit lors de la question des écoles au Manitoba, dans les années 1890, ou de la querelle linguistique, dans la même province, dans les années 1980, les Canadiens français en général, et les Québécois francophones en particulier, ont légitimement exprimé leurs préoccupations devant les tentatives de certains de leurs concitoyens de façonner le Canada à leur guise.

The bilingual among you will note that there is nothing in the French version which explains what the 1890 Manitoba Schools Question or the 1980 Manitoba language question were - Watson (or the editor) introduced that content themselves. Now, being married to a translator, I'm not the best person in my household to expound on theories of translation. But I imagine that you'd be hard-pressed to find a theorist who advocates introducing new material which is factually incorrect into the target text.

Unfortunately, a sadly low percentage of this country's population is sufficiently bilingual to read in the other official language. As such, they rely on translators. Especially in a book such as this - which is attempting to explain and promote the positions of federalist Quebeckers to English-speaking Canadian readers - one needs to be careful to do so as faithfully to the original as possible. Hopefully, the rest of the text will be cleaner, but I'm now wondering whether I would be further ahead to read the French version.

[...end rant]

Recommend this Post

Anti-secessionist voices in Francophone Quebec

La Presse's chief editorialist André Pratte must take a lot of flack in intellectual/media circles in Quebec. A "yes" voter in the 1980 referendum, he has since turned his back on the secessionist movement. Moreover, as he does in his blog today (in French), he has opted not to simply withdraw from active participation in debates over secession, but to tackle them head-on, puncturing various myths as he goes.

As Pratte mentions, to engage in these debates honestly as a federalist is to be labelled "irresponsible". To speak of the possible partition of an independent Quebec, to talk about the possibility that investment in the province might drop off after secession, to raise the spectre of an end to equalization payments in the transition period is to speak the unspeakable. And so, he praises Charest for being honest enough to even consider these possibilities when asked about them by journalists, rather than glibly denying these real possibilities. It's not just Charest who should be thanked for a bit of honesty on this front, Pratte deserves a heap of credit for being willing to put his own beliefs in print, into what can be a very chilly intellectual atmosphere, especially for a francophone - as Stéphane Dion found out in the mid-90s (and for which he continues to pay the price.

Quebec needs more of these eloquent francophone voices to oppose separatism, particularly at a time when neither major federalist federal party is held in high esteem.

Recommend this Post

André Pratte, Aux pays des merveilles. Essai sur les mythes politiques québécois

A couple of months ago, Toronto Star columnist Graham Fraser wrote about an important new book on the subject of Quebec nationalism and separatism. Written by La Presse chief editorialist André Pratte, Aux pays des merveilles. Essai sur les mythes politiques québécois is a thought-provoking, detailed examination of the many myths of sovereignist/separatist rhetoric in Quebec. As someone who voted in favour of both referenda, Pratte has changed his mind about where Quebec's future lies, and has written a stinging critique of the sovereignist project. It is a testament to his writing skill that I spent a Friday evening reading his book, unable to put it down. (Of course, when one lives in rural New Brunswick, the options for evening entertainment are more limited, but that should by no means be taken to reduce the significance of my enthusiasm for his keen writing style and probing analysis).

The 1995 "Oui" slogan could perhaps be considered the starting point for his analysis. "Oui, et ça devient possible!" could be read on advertizing panels throughout the province. But what lies on the other side of that looking glass that Bouchard, Parizeau et al wanted Quebeckers to pass through? According to Pratte, a world of unfathomably rosy assumptions, wishful thinking and self-delusions. Among other aspects of the separatist project, Pratte skewers the optimistic economic forecasts of the Legault budget, the unreasonable immigration projections and the coldly rational response envisaged from the rest of Canada. In each case, he argues, the transition period would be a far more dismal state of affairs than the separatists wanted to have the people believe.

In light of the recent scandal over the teaching of history in Quebec, where Ministry of Education officials proposed a major (but overly aggressive, in my opinion) reworking of the history curriculum that would not dwell completely on Quebec's grievances against the rest of Canada - the Conquest, the 1837 rebellions, the 1982 Constitution - it is interesting to see that Pratte, like the Parti Quebecois government that initiated the curriculum review, sees weaknesses in how Quebec history has been taught. As Pratte points out, the teaching of history in Quebec has been geared to training young nationalists. Where, he asks, are the stories of successful collaboration between English- and French-Canadians? Why is so much focus placed on the Lord Durham report, and not on the Baldwin-Lafontaine collaborations that supplanted it? Where are the heroic tales of Georges-Etienne Cartier as a Father of Confederation? Why is Quebec painted as a perpetual victim, helpless to shape its destiny, when it has accomplished so much within Canadian federalism?

And indeed, it is on the nature of Canadian federalism and the position of Quebec within this system that Pratte is at his strongest. He rightly points out that rarely, if ever, do you hear mention of Quebec's about-faces on the Fulton-Favreau formula (1964) and Victoria Charter (1971) after Premiers Lesage and Bourassa had struck a deal with the other premiers and the Prime Minister. And yet Meech Lake is the great betrayal? And why is federalism such a grievous injustice to Quebec? Time and time again, Pratte demonstrates, Canadian federalism has been able to accord Quebec the powers it has sought over pensions, immigration, and numerous other sectors. The problem, he argues, is that every time Quebec has a new demand, it is presented as a "long-standing grievance" worthy of withdrawal from Confederation. Even the so-called fiscal imbalance - the rallying cry of Gilles Duceppe - is a very recent phenomena, no more than a decade old at most, and not a deep injustice to the province requiring a massive redistribution of tax powers, but a minor tweaking of taxation levels. This is not the approach of a mature partner in Confederation.

It is gratifying to have an eloquent francophone voice pointing out these myths of the sovereignist/separatist project. Pratte believes that Canadian federalism is flexible enough to meet the needs and aspirations of Quebeckers, and I agree with him. Hopefully his book will be widely read, and used by defenders of federalism in the ongoing debates over the future of the province.

Recommend this Post