Loosey-goosey federations can grow too

“More than 60 per cent of Quebec residents define themselves as Quebecers first or exclusively, according to the survey by Leger Marketing . . . 

“Results of the survey for the Association for Canadian Studies suggest that almost one-third of Quebec francophones define themselves as Quebecers only, while 39 per cent see themselves as Quebecers first but also as Canadians.”

"I [Jack Jedwab, Executive Director, Association for Canadian Studies] think we'll have to live with the fact that selling the Canadian project in Quebec can't be about a love affair for most Quebecers," he added. "It's a marriage of convenience, not a marriage of love."

—“Quebecers Put Province Before Canada: Poll,” The Montreal Gazette, December 28, 2010

Click on: http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Quebecers+province+before+Canada+Poll/4034358/story.html#ixzz19t400F9i

Rather than working up new ways to sell the “Canadian project” to Quebec, let’s first read the data calmly, as federalists.

Canadian nationalists use their fair share of nation-building “projects” to romanticize the Canadian union.  Railways, public healthcare, and graves in northern France have been evoked to embellish the case for Canada. However, federalists have consistently made a winning case for Canada’s federation without asking for a change of heart. Indeed, our greatest unifiers have insisted we keep the heart in its place.

Laurier and Trudeau were immensely appealing. They loved British liberalism and the liberal possibilities of a federal state. However, they never seriously asked Canadians to love one another, sight unseen. Their case for Canada didn’t ask Quebecers to feel less passionately about Quebec, but to appreciate the benefits of the wider federation. They insisted that federalism was honourable and viable because they were Quebecers and Canadians at the same time.

As Oliver Wendell Holms said slightly differently about taxes, divided loyalties is a price we pay for living in a free and dynamic society. It is not the thin edge of the wedge that will eventually break Canada up or, for that matter, America’s federation.

Of course, it offends federalists that a plurality of Quebecers has recently been electing separatists to Canada’s federal parliament. However, saying Quebec has all the benefits with none of the responsibility of looking out for the federation is a morbid stretch. In the 2008 federal election, the Bloc Quebecois won only 38% of the popular vote in Quebec. Furthermore, the turn-out in that federal election in Quebec was above the Canadian average. Indeed, it was above loyal Ontario: 61.1% compared to 59.1%. On tests of sacrifice—for instance, paying federal taxes and volunteering to fight in Afghanistan—Quebecers are as reliable as Canadians elsewhere.

However, could this palpable lack of emotion about Canada in the province of Quebec lead to separation by accident? Surely, countries that have stayed together freely as long as Canada has do not come apart by accident.

A more emotional transCanada nationalism in Quebec, of course, is something that romantic nationalists want to see more of in other parts of Canada as well. Without Quebec, that nationalism would be no easier to manufacture elsewhere.

An unsentimental union also harbors a larger idea, one that also grates with nationalists. If British Columbians and Quebecers can do politics together without loving each other, why not with Californians and Bostonians as well?

Modern Quebec and the Jews

On Monday, the National Post ran a story entitled, “Poll finds French-English gap towards Jews.” A poll commissioned by the Association for Canadian Studies found, “only 34% of French-speaking Canadians felt Jews shared their values versus 73% of English-speaking Canadians.”

Click on: http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/Poll+Finds+Frenchenglish+Toward+Jews/3793036/story.html

Canadian novelist, Mordecai Richler probably would have had something sharp and smart to say, but he’s dead. So, a bothersome story in the mainstream press passed without note. Still, this is a striking assertion.

The poll was released exclusively to Postmedia and doesn’t provide any technical background: for instance, the exact wording of the question and whether there was any meaningful difference in the percent of English-Speaking and French-Speaking Canadians who simply declined to answer or said they were undecided. Nevertheless, taken as reported, the survey suggests that when Canadians think about those who share their values, French-Speaking Canadians are half as likely to include Jews.

For two generations, Quebec has portrayed itself to us and to itself as a liberal, secular, humanist society. For French-speaking Canadians to see the Jew—the most stubborn liberal in our midst—in different terms doesn’t make sense. Rather than their values, is it possible that the Jew’s commitment to Quebec as a French-speaking society is still in doubt?  Any nation with a strong sense of solidarity often displays a dark side towards the “other.”

The Association of Canadian Studies has succeeded in getting our attention. They should consider telling us more, if they wish to help us better understand what French-Speaking and English-Speaking Canadians think.