Vous avez tous et toutes été témoins des dérapages survenus lors de la discussion initiée par mon billet intitulé «Nous».  Et ce n’était pas la première fois. Cela m’a forcé à édicter de nouvelles règles du jeu que voici. Elles sont évidemment discutables, mais ce sont les miennes. C’est comme ça et c’est tout.

•1.      J’ai d’abord coupé l’accès à mon site à certaines personnes. Inutile de me rappeler que ce n’est pas une mesure à toute épreuve, je le sais. Inutile aussi de vous dire de qui il s’agit. Vous vous en apercevrez bien assez vite.

•2.       J’ai aussi effacé certains commentaires dont le ton ou le contenu m’apparaissaient déplacés. N’ayant pas que cela à faire de mes journées, il est possible que j’aie effacé, dans une certaine précipitation, quelques commentaires qui n’étaient pas si répréhensibles que cela. Toutes mes excuses si vous êtes de ceux-là. Quand on passe l’aspirateur, il peut arriver que l’on aspire accidentellement d’innocentes créatures.

•3.      Désormais, après une cinquantaine de commentaires, je fermerai la possibilité d’en faire parvenir d’autres, à moins d’une situation exceptionnelle dont je serai le seul juge. Je remarque qu’après ce nombre – tantôt un peu plus, tantôt un peu moins -, les redites commencent, le dialogue de sourds s’installe, les procès d’intention s’accumulent, les esprits s’échauffent, et la discussion n’a généralement plus rien à voir avec le thème de départ. Si je note qu’avant la cinquantaine, le radotage s’est déjà installé ou que l’air est déjà pollué, je fermerai aussitôt les commentaires.

•4.      Chaque personne ne pourra faire plus de cinq commentaires. Je serai sans pitié là-dessus. «Ni oubli, ni pardon !» comme disait le comte de Monte-Cristo. Ramassez-vous et dites ce que vous avez à dire en une ou deux fois, puis, si vous le souhaitez, rectifiez le tir ou commentez les propos d’autrui une ou deux autres fois. That’s it that‘s all.  Quelqu’un faisait remarquer l’autre jour que 84% des commentaires sur mon billet «Nous» étaient le fait de…six personnes. Si vous voulez «chatter», il existe des lieux pour cela.

Voilà. Pour le moment, je garde en réserve des mesures plus «lourdes» comme l’inscription obligatoire ou la mise en attente de modération de tous les commentaires.

Par ailleurs, je note que l’anonymat donne à certaines personnes (je dis bien «certaines», pas toutes) le «courage» de dire des choses qu’elles n’oseraient sans doute pas dire si elles devaient signer de leur vrai nom, mais bon…

Comprenons-nous bien : ceci n’est pas l’équivalent d’une autoroute publique. Vos impôts et taxes ne financent pas ce site. Veuillez donc le considérer comme un sentier de campagne privé qu’il me fait plaisir de vous permettre d’utiliser…à condition que vous n’y laissiez pas traîner vos papiers sales et vos névroses. Si vous avez des obsessions particulières que vous tenez absolument à partager avec le reste de l’univers, rien ne vous interdit de créer votre propre site.

J’espère que les choses sont désormais claires. Je veux bien jouer le jeu, mais je n’ai pas besoin de ceci à tout prix, et ma patience n’est pas une ressource énergétique éternellement renouvelable.

Pourquoi en avoir parlé ? Parce qu’il est vrai, comme le notait un collègue,  que l’importance médiatique qui est accordée à QS est sans commune mesure avec son poids réel. Mais un proche m’a aussi fait remarquer que c’est moins vrai aujourd’hui qu’à ses débuts, quant il avait l’attrait de la nouveauté, et encore cette couverture semblait particulièrement intense et sympathique dans Le Devoir. Enfin…je pense surtout que j’ai voulu les picosser avec humour parce qu’ils en sont totalement dépourvus d’humour. C’est comme s’ils portaient le poids de toute l’humanité opprimée sur leurs épaules. Que voulez-vous, je finis par les trouver un peu «heavy».

On m’a fait remarquer que les péquistes ont eux aussi, souvent, ce réflexe : «un jour, le peuple se réveillera et comprendra». Vrai, mais on peut difficilement mettre sur le même pied un parti qui a  été au pouvoir pendant 18 des 31 dernières années – donc qui n’a pas dû dire des choses si déconnectées – et un parti qui, visiblement, ne décolle pas. Et en même temps, je suis heureux que QS existe, sérieusement. Le billet de J.-P.Garneau sur les radicalismes en politique est un bijou à cet égard.

J’ai évidemment lu les textes de Josée Legault et de Richard Martineau sur le «culte de l’écoute». Un instant. Personne ne dit, en tout cas pas moi, que l’écoute vous dispense d’avoir des convictions et d’essayer d’en convaincre autrui. L’un ne va pas sans l’autre. Préféreriez-vous l’inverse : la non-écoute ? Bien sûr qu’il faut défendre nos idées, mais encore faut-il s’assurer que celles-ci font écho, qu’elles sont des réponses aux inquiétudes, aux espoirs, aux aspirations de la population. Et pour cela, il faut écouter cette dernière, ce qui ne veut pas dire lui donner toujours raison. 

Sur l’essence, je pense exactement comme Hubert.  Et non, mon cher Grumpy, je ne me «cache» pas derrière un quelconque «alias» sur ce blogue. D’ailleurs, je ne me cache jamais, ni ici ni ailleurs.  

Un carton jaune, c’est un avertissement sévère. Un deuxième carton jaune entraîne l’expulsion immédiate pour toute la partie, pas un petit «cinq minutes» au banc des pénalités comme au hockey.

Vous me voyez venir, non ? Le ton s’envenime et ceux (ou celles) à qui je m’adresse sauront se reconnaître : pourriez-vous vous en tenir, s’il vous plaît, à un débat d’idées et éviter les attaques personnelles ? Les autres n’ont évidemment pas à se sentir visés.

Considérez ceci comme un premier carton jaune. De grâce, ne me faites pas avoir des regrets. On se comprend ?  On fait un effort ?

Je l’avoue : jamais je n’aurais pensé que je me laisserais à ce point prendre au jeu et que je trouverais cela si passionnant.  Je lis tout religieusement et, comme je vous l’ai déjà dit, tant que le ton reste dans les limites de l’acceptable, je ne ferai pas le ménage dans les commentaires. Lâchez-vous «lousse» !

Zach Gebello s’interroge sur ma nationalité. Effectivement, j’ai la double citoyenneté : uruguayenne et canadienne. Il me manque encore celle que je chérirerais le plus : la québécoise.

Sur toutes ces questions d’impôts, je précise que je ne suis pas fiscaliste. Je donne mon avis du mieux que je peux, en essayant de rester cohérent, mais je ne prétends pas que mes opinions soient le mot de la fin et … je me réserve aussi le droit de changer d’avis.

Non, Nicole, tous les textes du blogue ne sont pas des duplicatas de ceux du Journal de Montréal, mais oui, j’y place toutes mes chroniques, précisément pour que vous puissiez me faire parvenir rapidement vos réactions, ce qui ne serait pas possible autrement. Je m’apprête d’ailleurs à y placer aussi une petite chose publiée l’autre jour dans La Presse, intitulée «Le respect des faits».

J’ai essayé d’expliquer aux gens présents, pour la plupart des universitaires et des fonctionnaires des gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux, a) pourquoi tant de Québécois avaient été heurtés et continuent de l’être par le rapatriement unilatéral, en 1982, de la constitution canadienne et par la réduction des pouvoirs de l’Assemblée nationale qui s’ensuivit, b) pourquoi l’adoption de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés ne m’apparaît pas avoir été une initiative porteuse de progrès social notable pour le Québec, de mon point de vue évidemment, et c) pourquoi j’estime qu’une nouvelle crise constitutionnelle surviendra tôt ou tard au Canada.

Disons que les réactions de l’auditoire allèrent de l’accueil poli à l’hostilité, mais je ne m’attendais pas à autre chose, surtout de la part de ceux, dans l’assistance, qui furent à l’époque des acteurs importants de ces événements. Jugez-en vous-mêmes. Voici le texte. Il est évidemment en anglais. Chose certaine, je ne regrette pas d’y être allé. Enjoy.

Distinguished guests,

Ladies and gentlemen, 

When I began thinking about what I was going to say, I quickly came to the conclusion that I should say what I think you should hear, which is probably not, in this case, what you would like to hear. You will see why immediately. 

Let me reassure you right away : I am not expecting a standing ovation, just a respectful hearing. 

My three basic points will be : a) to throw light on why a majority of Quebeckers still view so negatively to this day the events of 1982, b) why I believe that the Constitutional Act of 1982 and the Charter of rights have not been major instruments of social progress when seen from Quebec’s point of view, and c) that there are serious reasons to believe that Canada will, sooner or later, but inevitably face a new major political crisis, simply because none of the major grievances that fuel Quebec nationalism, of which the sovereignist movement is but one expression, have been properly addressed by the Canadian political system. 

But in order to understand all of this, one has to look beyond daily and superficial occurrences, beyond also the inevitable tensions all federations experience, and concentrate on deep, long-term historical trends, which is precisely what politicians and journalists seldom do. 

Let me also clear one thing immediately. Some of you might be tempted to say : well, you’re a Quebec nationalist ! Obviously, you’ll have a negative view of anything aimed at building Canadian national unity and you can’t possibly claim that your point of view is the sole embodiment of the Quebec point of view !

Of course, I don’t claim to speak for all of Quebec. I simply ask you to ponder the fact that none of the three current major political parties in Quebec, including the very very federalist Liberal Party under Jean Charest, even thinks about one day signing the Canadian constitution as it is because it would be a recipe for political suicide.  

If you want to understand the Quebec position during and since the events of 1982, you have first of all to keep in mind that : 

«For Quebec governments (federalist or sovereignist), intergovernmental relations are something akin to foreign policy. A clear and consistent line runs from one government to the next, which defines the broad outlines of what can and cannot be done or accepted. Radical turnarounds are generally not possible. (…). Quebec governments will change, but Quebec society, with its demands and expectations, will remain, to a large extent, the same». (Noël, St-Hilaire and Fortin, 2003, p. 18)

 
A) Why do so many Quebeckers, even a majority of Quebec federalists, still feel to this day a sense of betrayal when they think about the events of 1982 ?  

This requires first a clear grasp of the broad common reading all Quebec governments and a majority of Quebeckers have had since 1867 of how and why the Canadian federal system came into being and what Quebec’s experience of it has been. 

Let us start with the following basic premise: Quebec is the only society with a French-speaking majority and a well-defined territorial base on the North American continent. This society was keenly aware of its distinctiveness well before modern Canada was created in 1867, and has always claimed a status and powers enabling it to preserve and strengthen its identity.
 

As you all know, Quebec signed the 1867 constitution on the basis of what it saw as a pact between two founding nations, thereby establishing a federal system in which the two orders of government would be, so it was thought in Quebec, sovereign in their respective spheres of jurisdiction. Quebec felt it would then have the leeway it needed to preserve its identity.  
 

Quebec’s desire to maintain its identity was asserted even more intensely in the early 1960s when a modern Quebec state emerged during the period of the Quiet Revolution and was confirmed in its responsibility of protecting and developing the identity of a society which now viewed itself as a nation and has ever since.  

Meanwhile, another vision of identity, another nationalism emerged in the rest of Canada, promoted among others by a prominent Quebecker, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. This was of course the vision of “One state, one nation”, based no longer on the dual vision on the 1867 pact between two founding nations but on multiculturalism and the primacy of individual rights.

 The fundamental problem lies in the fact that these two nationalisms have progressively become more and more incompatible and have experienced growing difficulty in cohabiting within the same political system. 

Why ? Simply because Quebec’s vision has traditionally implied a quest for more political autonomy flowing from a status based on special responsibilities relating to its identity within an asymmetrical federalism while the Canadian vision based on multiculturalism logically implies a strong central government and equality between the provinces, thus ruling out almost any kind of recognition of a special status for Quebec. 

The unilateral repatriation of the 1982 constitution without Quebec’s consent was the most striking episode of the clash between these two visions of identity and these two equally legitimate nationalisms. The Canadian government imposed on Quebec a substantial reduction in the powers of Quebec’s National Assembly. Quebec also had imposed on it an amending formula that has turned out to be a constitutional straightjacket.
 

This was viewed in Quebec as a unilateral rupture of the founding contract of 1867 between the two founding nations which was the basis on which Quebec accepted to join

The adoption in 1982 of the Canadian Charter of rights was of course a key component of a national unity strategy aimed at trumping the notion of collective rights – mainly those of Quebeckers – by putting an emphasis on individual rights. On those grounds, it has also failed. Quebec nationalism is as vibrant as ever.

 You may ask : but hasn’t the 1982 Charter of rights been, despite the political illegitimacy of its birth and its political objectives, a force for good in the daily lives of Quebeckers ? The answer would be yes if the Canadian Charter had protected rights which were  unprotected until then. But as you know, Quebec already had its own Charter of rights since 1975. The only thing the Canadian charter has added, with the exceptions, for obvious reasons, of criminal law and marriage, was the very controversial clause on access to English schools in Quebec. Even sexual orientation was already protected by the Quebec Charter.  
 

Since 1975, the Quebec Charter has also been amended a dozen times proving itself to be flexible and adaptable to the evolution of a modern and vibrant society whereas the federal Charter has proven itself to be extraordinarily rigid and almost impervious to social change, since it can only be modified through judicial interpretation and not through Parliament. 

The Canadian Charter has also reinforced the evolution of the judiciary branch of government as an autonomous and unelected power somewhat similar to the American style of separation of powers – even allowing judges to try to impose to the legislature how much they should be paid – while becoming along the way a Klondike for lawyers by lengthening legal procedures.

But above all, it was supposed to be a founding pillar on which to build Canadian national unity. Is Canada more united now than it was before 1982 ? Obviously not.
 

C) And now my third and final point. 

Since 1982, all attempts to bring Quebec back into the constitution fold have ended in failure.  All of these attempts have stumbled on the same obstacle : unwillingness on the part of English Canada to accept the fact that the recognition of Quebec’s distinct character should not be empty rhetoric but should have concrete institutional consequences in terms of specific powers. We’ve reached a point when no one outside of

But you might say : well, can’t we achieve progress without taking the constitutional route ? If it were that easy, how can we explain that when Stephen Harper recognized the «Québécois» as a nation, it was he, not Quebeckers, who put forward a purely ethnic definition of Quebeckers as being only those of old-French-Canadian stock and not an inclusive definition of all Quebeckers as part of a Quebec nation ? And of course, we all saw that Michael Ignatieff’s bid for the federal Liberal leadership began to sink the moment he began to contemplate recognition of Quebec as a nation. Food for thought, isn’t it ? 

It is often suggested that administrative agreements could be a way around the constitutional stalemate. But the fact of the matter is that the principle of equality between the provinces, which is of course at the heart of the 1982 Constitution, makes it extraordinarily difficult to recognize almost any kind of special status for Quebec, even at the administrative level, because such an opening will often be perceived in the rest of Canada as preferential treatment for Quebec. In the case of administrative agreements, the principle of equality of the provinces translates itself in a clause for so-called equality of treatment between the provinces.

This clause has a levelling effect. Any condition offered to one province must be offered to all provinces. But because the other Canadian provinces do not wish as much decentralization or as many additional responsibilities, Quebec is often trapped by this levelling down to the lowest common denominator. Some of you may recall that Richard Simeon had already detected this dynamic in federal-provincial relations way back in 1972. 

Some scholars have pointed out that provinces want to have it both ways to a certain extent.  How can the provinces for example accept equalization payments and at the same time refuse to submit to a set of standards that would ensure a reasonable level of comparable social programs across Canada ?
 Theoretically, there are three ways to ensure the delivery of reasonably comparable services across the land in a federation where jurisdiction over social policy belongs to the provinces. The first way would be for the Federal Parliament to define national standards and to order the central government to make compliance with these a condition for the provinces to get federal funding. But this makes a mockery of the federal principle of non-subordination of one government to the other. What would be left of a province’s right to exercise its sovereign powers?

The second way would be for provincial governments to impose upon themselves common standards before the federal government does it for them. But provincial governments have never been successful in finding solid common ground because of their huge differences in interests.. Even when provinces do agree, Quebec has had a long and very negative experience of provincial common fronts which have collapsed in a matter of hours as soon as Ottawa begins writing checks. 

The third way would be for the federal and provincial partners to jointly establish these common objectives and minimum standards in a joint process of codecision. But there is now so much accumulated bitterness and distrust that it would take a  revolution in attitudes.  Even then why is it that codecision, in the eyes of those that favour that view, would be limited, if it were even possible, to areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction ?  

One is tempted to ask, tongue in cheek, why there aren’t such noble offers of collaboration from Ottawa in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction. Why is it that codecision is always a one-way only, top down only proposition ? It reminds me of the old Soviet strategy during the Cold War : what is ours remains ours, what is yours we are willing to negociate.
 

If the prevailing belief in political circles outside of Quebec is now that the strict constitutional division of powers of 1867 is hopelessly passé, the theoretical course of action would be to acknowledge it and amend the Constitution. If this is viewed as practically impossible, it just shows how dysfunctional Canadian federalism has become and how distant from each other the two solitudes still are.  

This has led some scholars, like Thomas Courchesne (1998), to suggest that the provinces should be more imaginative and find new ways to play the federal-provincial game. But this is easier said than done. Innovative social policy in modern, complex societies which recognize universal entitlements is extremely costly and all provinces except Alberta are cash-strapped. Facing them is a federal juggernaut with huge financial clout, a clear view of what it wants to accomplish and strong public support everywhere except in

The conflict between, on the one hand, the legitimate desire in by many English-speaking Canadians to promote a more cohesive and uniform set of policies across Canada and, on the other hand, Quebec’s unflinching will to assert its distinctiveness in ways which will go beyond a purely rhetorical and meaningless difference looks like a conflict between an irresistible force and an unmovable object, which is why one should not bet against another major crisis in the near future.

I thank you very much.

Courchesne, T. and Telmer, C., From Heartland to North-American Region-State: The Social, Fiscal and Federal Evolution of Ontario, monograph, Series on Public Policy, Center for Public Management, University of Toronto, 1998.

Noël, A., St-Hilaire, F., and Fortin, S., “Learning from the SUFA Experience”, in Noël, A., St-Hilaire, F. and Fortin, S. (eds.), Forging the Canadian Social Union: SUFA and Beyond, Institute for Research on Public Policy, Montreal, 2003, pp. 1-29.