Sovereignty strategist Louise Beaudoin
on ‘Frenchification,’ Quebec’s self-confidence,
and how to separate from Canada bit by bit
Louise Beaudoin has been at the forefront of
Quebec’s sovereignty movement for over 40
years. As a cabinet minister in three Parti Québécois
governments, she was largely responsible
for the province’s language laws. Now, as a
Montreal-area MNA, she is one of the main
architects of the party’s new ‘plan for a sovereign
Quebec’, which would use ‘sectoral referenda’
in order to wrestle powers like taxation
and culture away from Ottawa.
Q Tell me about the PQ’s
latest plan for a sovereign
Quebec.
A: We thought it was
time to remobilize the
sovereignist troops and
relaunch the sovereignty debate. We want to
do away with the waiting game. It’s nice to say
that we are going to wait for that big night
where everything falls into place, but we know
this won’t magically happen. So the best way
to reignite the debate is this plan that [PQ
leader] Pauline Marois has presented. We want
to be transparent in what we are doing and
what we want. The first thing, of course, is for
Ottawa to respect the constitution of 1867, that
is to say Quebec’s powers, as well as those that
are shared with the federal government, as
well as to reclaim certain powers that we think
are necessary for Quebec’s development.
Q: In concrete terms, how do you arrive at
getting these powers for Quebec?
A: We’ve already started. A year and a half
ago we put forward our proposed law on
Quebec identity and citizenship. When we
get into power we will reintroduce this bill.
Q: You are talking about how the PQ would
make it mandatory for anyone running for
office to speak French?
A: Yes. We’ll present that part of it as it is,
but it’s negotiable. What is sure, though, is
that in the next election, if the Parti Québécois
wins the elections, both the identity bill
and the PQ’s new sovereignty initiative will
be front and centre. We will also introduce a
new Bill 101, because we believe that it has
been very good as far as obliging the children
of immigrants to go to French school until
the age of 16. But we have to work on Quebec’s
businesses. It isn’t worth it for an immigrant
from, say, Pakistan to learn French if
he doesn’t need it. And this is more and more
the case, especially in Montreal.
Q: This would involves applying Bill 101 to
businesses with 50 employees or less. But even
Camille Laurin, the father of Bill 101, recognized
that this would be nearly impossible on
a bureaucratic level to enforce.
A: I think there are ways of doing it.
Q: What can you do?
A: Look, the Journal de Montréal did many
investigations, and found that it is easier to be
served in English than in French in many places
in Montreal. This isn’t acceptable. If Dr. Laurin
was still with us, and saw the drift away
from French, I’m sure he would be 100 percent
in favour of this. French must be learned
inside the walls of every small business, with
the blessing of the owner and the managers.
The first reflex for an immigrant, and it’s very
understandable, isn’t to learn French, it’s to
find a job. So you have to make him learn
French while, not after, he is working. That is
the future of ‘Frenchification’ in Quebec in
small- and medium-sized business. It’s the best
way to ensure that French is made useful and
necessary in the workplace. And under our
new Bill 101, the PQ will mandate that immigrants
will receive all of their governmental
correspondence in French after three years.
Q: It’s an awful lot to say that he must find
a job and learn French within three years or
else . . .
A: It’s not or else. All we’re saying is that
after three years they will receive their government
correspondence in French. If they have
a problem with reading it, they can call us and
we’ll help. But at some point you have to put
your foot down. If you are in Italy, you speak
Italian. We will inscribe the predominance of
the French language in Quebec’s charter.
Q: We’ve had a lot of plans for a sovereign
Quebec . . .
A: Yeah, and if one of them had worked
we’d be independent today.
Q: Why are Quebecers so apathetic about
the idea?
A: I don’t know. I’m not sure they are apathetic,
though. The polls say that there are
“only” 40 percent of Quebecers who are
favourable to sovereignty right now, but I
find that number huge.
Q: But 75 percent of Quebecers don’t think
sovereignty is ever going to happen.
A: I’m trying to find ways to convince them.
What we are saying is we are going to do concrete
things to get there, to show why sovereignty is necessary.

Q: But it’s been years that you’ve been trying
this. This isn’t anything new. AWhy would I stop? It’s such
a lovely road. I was elected
to do this.
Q: Tell me about the
plans for ‘sectoral referendums.’
I understand the
plan is to have not just one but several referendums.
What’s the strategy?
A: There’s no real strategy. It’s one of the
ways among many to have transfers of power
from Ottawa. Like culture, for example.
Q: But what if we go into areas like taxation?
Marois wants to remove the federal government’s
ability to collect taxes in Quebec.
What happens if Ottawa says no?
A: Then the people can decide for themselves.
It’s a democracy. Pauline didn’t exclude
the possibility of one referendum on taxation,
for example. There might eventually be one.
Q: Just one sectoral referendum?
A: One or two.
Q: Or three?
A: No, no. That isn’t our objective. Honestly.
If a crisis arises, it will be from Ottawa,
because it will be the federal government who
won’t be respecting its boundaries.
Q: The thing is, it takes a constitutional
amendment in order to change the powers on
something as fundamental as taxation. What
happens when and if Ottawa says no?
A: We’ve had constitutional amendments
in the past. Pauline Marois negotiated for
one when Quebec changed from religious- to
language-based school boards. Anything can
happen.
Q: So you have to create a crisis, as Jacques
Parizeau said.
A: No. I don’t think that. I respect Mr. Parizeau’s
opinion, but it isn’t my own.
Q: La Presse deemed your current plan
‘sovereignty à la IKEA,’ in the sense that you
take the powers one by one because you don’t
have the support to take them all at once.
A: We’ve been very clear: our objective is total
sovereignty for Quebec. One day there will be
a real referendum like in 1995 and 1980.
Q: Is the idea to wrestle so much power from
Ottawa, bit by bit, that people become less and
less scared of outright independence?
A: That might be a collateral effect, but the
intended goal of these referendums is basically
to say ‘always more’ for Quebec. More
powers, more political space. That’s all.
Q: Many sovereignists seem to have an animosity
toward the Quebec population because,
they believe, the population is too comfortable
and too indifferent. After all, as René Lévesque
used to say, Canada isn’t hell.
A: You’re right. Canada isn’t hell. It isn’t a
gulag.
Q: In a way that’s your problem, isn’t it?
A: Maybe. But it’s up to us to convince
people. It’s a democracy, and democracy
means convincing people, not forcing people.
Look, people could have elected the ADQ
into official opposition again if they wanted
to, right? But they didn’t. And our objective,
and it’s very clear, is to get out of Canada. And
what we say in the meantime is that Quebec
wants more. More powers, political space.
Q: When you were minister responsible for
Quebec’s French charter, you attracted a fair
amount of ire from Montreal’s English community.
I’m thinking of that caricature by the
Gazette’s Aislin, where he had you dressed up
as a dominatrix . . .
A: Ah, yes. My friend Aislin. I’m his fantasy.
I hope I still am, despite my age.
Q: What I’m wondering is if you think attitudes
have changed on the English side.
A: Yes. I think the anglophone community
has become more bilingual and has become
more aware and accepting of the French
majority. The new challenge now, for us, is
getting new arrivals here to become part of
the French majority.
Q: But you could say that the English community
has done so in the last 15 years because
there hasn’t been the threat of separation. The
second you bring that threat back . . .
A: What English people in Quebec need to
understand is that the PQ has never questioned
their rights as a minority. McGill, Concordia
and Bishop’s are subsidized to the hilt
by the Quebec government, with our tax dollars,
so you can’t say that English institutions
aren’t respected. It’s changed, but for a long
time you could say that the French were a sort
of majority ruled by English Rhodesians. Bill
101 changed it, and for a long time it worked.
The problem is, globalization has made English
the dominant language again. So it is
important to reinforce the French fact again.
A: And you need sovereignty for this.
Q: I’ll tell you why we need sovereignty. To
have confidence in ourselves, to be as open
as possible to others.
Q:You need sovereignty to be open to others?
A: Yes. To be open to others you need to
be sure of oneself, and the only way to be
totally sure of ourselves is to be sovereign. If
you and I talk in 10 years after sovereignty,
I’m convinced that Quebecers will have even
more self-confidence, they’ll be far more
advanced individually and collectively, and
everyone will be more happy. There you go.
Q: It’s almost a religion.
A: Oh, good God no. I’m secular, as secular
as they come.
Q: So it’s a secular religion, in the sense that
you have to proselytize.
A: And federalism isn’t? Federalists do the
same thing, so I’m as religious as they are, I
guess. Look at Charest, when he raised his
Canadian passport in the air during the referendum
in 1995. You’re telling me that wasn’t
cult-like? When it’s time to fight, Quebec
federalists like Jean Charest all become preachers
for Captain Canada.
Q: The end result is that Quebec is constantly
at war with itself. It’s an obsession. I wish I
could come here and interview you about the
weather instead. Anything else but this.
A: The weather is never good in Quebec
City. What do you want to talk about? Life’s
purpose? Death? Love? Sure, but this is part
of my life, and I love it.
Q: There’s a cartoon that ran in Le Devoir
not long ago of a guy sitting on a horse, obviously
from Alberta, screaming, ‘Separate already!’
It seems some Canadians can’t wait.
A: Part of it is that all of this debate happens
peacefully. That’s a big thing. Look at what
happened in Ireland for 30 years. Look what
at the Basques territories in Spain. Here we
are an example of how to do things. Sure, we
piss each other off, and English Canadians say
they wish we’d make up our minds, and we
say that they don’t understand a thing. But it
is exemplary because the debate is civilized.
Q: So because we aren’t violent we are condemned
to this endless cycle.
A: Yes, but it’s better than being violent,
isn’t it? It’s much, much better.
PHOTOGRAPHS BY LIAM MALONEY