FEATURE: Jacques Parizeau’s 1993 CJN interview

Jacques Parizeau

Former Quebec premier and longtime Parti Québécois stalwart Jacques Parizeau, who famously blamed ethnic minorities for the "Yes" side's loss in the 1995 referendum on Quebec sovereignty, died June 1 after a long illness.

In 2013, Parizeau acknowledged that in the razor-thin loss on Oct. 30, 1995, for which he blamed “money and the ethnic vote,” he was referring to the combined efforts of the Jewish, Italian and Greek communities on behalf of the "No" side.

“I knew very well who I was targeting when I said that: the common front of Italian, Greek and Jewish congresses,” Parizeau said .

He said that at 12 polling stations in Cote St. Luc, a heavily Jewish municipality in Montreal, “there were no Yes votes.”

The secession referendum lost by only 50,000 out of 4.8 million votes — less than 1 percent.

Parizeau stepped down the day after making the controversial comments.

Two years before the 1995 referendum, while he was still leader of the opposition, he sat down with CJN reporter Elias Levy and then-editor-in-chief Patricia Rucker for a wide-ranging interview in French. The translation of that exchange is below.

 

Jacques Parizeau, chief of the Official Opposition in the Quebec National Assembly and president of the Parti Québécois, is profouruily convinced that the resounding defeat of the Charlottetown Accord is irreversible, and that Quebecers no longer see any hope of moving forward through a renewal of Canadian federalism. According to the PQ leader, who was minister of finance in the government of René Lévesque and a former professor at l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes Commerciales de Montreal, the only healthy and plausible alternative which Quebecers should seriously consider is sovereignty.

During a recent interview in his Montreal office with Canadian Jewish News editor-in-chief Patricia Rucker land reporter Elias Levy, M. Parizeau analyzed and reflected on a wide range of current issues, including the reasons prompting the PQ to oppose Bill 86, the revisions to the language law proposed by the governing Liberal party; the state of relations between the PQ and the leadership of the Jewish community of Quebec; the positioris held by francophone sovereigntists towards the cultural communities living in “la Belle Province”; the primary aims of the sovereigntist project; the stakes in the next provincial election…

A number of polls published over the past several weeks in Montreal daily newspapers indicate that a high proportion of francophone Quebecers (for example, three out of four according to a CROP poll taken between May 8 and 13 for the Montreal daily La Presse) agree with permitting bilingual exterior signs as stipulated in Bill 86: Aren’t these very telling results in contradiction with the official position taken oh this issue by the Parii Québécois – that Bill 86 constitutes a serious threat to the French fact in Quebec?

To the best of my knowledge, all the polls which use the word “bilingual” have invariably, for a decade, given this kind of result. You mention the CROP poll, but are you aware of another poll published several days earlier in Le Devoir which ended up with diametrically opposite results? Everything depends on how the questions contained in these polls are formulated. In effect, as soon as you ask Quebecers the following question: “Do you think that bilingual sighs should be limited to individuals only, while unilingual French signage, should apply only to companies?”, you divide public opinion down the middle.

All this confusion emanates from the high degree of ambiguity currently surrounding the notion of fundamental rights as they apply to an individual or to a company. Certainly, some of the decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada haven’t made clarifications at this level any easier.

Of whom are we speaking when we allude to fundamental rights, and to one of their principal corollaries, freedom of expression? There is not the least doubt that these rights concern above all the individual. Not having been created by the State, the individual needs to rely on the Charter of Rights in order to protect himself or herself against the state. Does a company, who in the eyes of existing legislation is considered to be a legal entity, also have fundamental rights? I doubt it. In effect, companies and corporations are-creatures of the state.

It is true that a serious problem of definition has always existed-regarding what distinctions to make between an enterprise belonging to an individual and a limited liability corporation controlled by several shareholders. People play with all these ideas for essentially political ends.

Remember the uproar over the judgment expressed several weeks ago by the Committee on Human Rights of the United Nations, which very severely criticized the present language policy of the Bourassa government? This same committee has not placed very much emphasis, in accordance with one of the supplementary protocols grafted onto the Charter, on the fact that it authorizes only individuals – and not companies – to have recourse to it to put forth their grievances on the international stage. A lot of people have forgotten that.

I believe that an individual needs to be protected against the state. But, in my opinion. Eaton’s, Sears or Zellers are creatures of the state. Certainly, once you touch on the question of fundamental rights arid freedom of expression, you literally change the nature of the entire debate.

Nevertheless, one gets the impression that the debate concerning eventual passage of Bill 86 has unfolded so far without the clash of too much bitter controversy. At least for now, the Quebec population hasn’t held mass demonstrations in the streets against this bill, Don’t you have the impression that Quebecers want at all costs to avoid getting bogged down one more time in another language ‘‘war” with regrettable social consequences?

It’s very true that, compared with the quarrels we’ve known in the past, things are unfolding this time much more peaceably. It’s true that there haven’t been, up to now, either huge public parades or impressive demonstrations in the street. But, it’s undeniable that the protests are taking another form. They no longer look the same,

A rather striking phenomenon is now in the process of surfacing, which in my opinion ought not to go unnoticed. For the first time in the political history of Quebec, the Union of Municipalities and the Union of Regional County Municipalities have refused to take a position on this law which, after all, applies to all towns arid municipalities. As for the mayor of Montreal, Jean Dore, he hasn’t hesitated to state, in front of the committee of the legislature charged with examining this question, that he is in favor of bilingual signage at the level of individuals or personal corporations, but that he is against the application of this linguistic. arrangement to companies. The mayor of Quebec City has also, during the public hearingis held by this committee, expressed his profound disagreement with the principal aims of this bill. Reactions like these have never been seeri before in the history of Quebec.

 

If the Parti Québécois assumes power after the next proyincial election, will it fully restore the main clauses of the Charter of the French Language embedded in Bill 101?

It’s imperative to understand once and for all that, from the moment we return to power, our first objective will be to realize, as rapidly as possible, the sovereignty of Quebec. Between the moment when we take power and the moment when we organize a referendum which will allow the population of Quebec to make their final decision on our sovereignty project, we’re estimating a time lapse of about eight to 10 months.

All the actions we put forward during that period must be interpreted in light of what we hope to achieve in the framework of a sovereign Quebec. It’s not a question of beginning to adopt interim laws during those eight to 10 months. It is at that moment that the initial objective of Bill 101 will regain its full meaning.

I must insist upon once more restating that the prime objective of Bill 101, on which all the other provisions and clauses attached to that law depend, was never – contrary to what some people think – to ensure the primacy of the French language over the English language. That aspect came much later. It was introduced by the Liberal Party of Quebec, when it began to make legislation, for the purpose of ascertaining if the French characters in commercial signs should be twice as large as the English. I remind you that, during the period when Bill 101 was in force, this ludicrous and muddled aspect of the law was never brought up.

Bill 101 simply referred to the necessity for the inhabitants of all of Quebec generally to live in French, the language of the majority. It’s this idea that constitutes the essence of Bill 101. Should commercial signage in Quebec be, as a rule, bilingual? Certainly not. From the moment you indicate to the population of Quebec, especially to ‘ the new immigrants, that henceforth everything will be translated, French will then stop being the essential language. After all, why would that tonglie be necessary when one can, from then on, manage without it in an officially bilingual society. This is the reason why we are fundamentally convinced that Bill 86 goes against the principal objectives set out in Bill 101.

As far as we’re concerned, as soon as the Parti Québécois returns, to power, we will work flat out to vigorously reaffirm the main purpose of Bill 101: French must be the language in which Quebec society naturally and normally functions.

Should the schools continue to play a dominant role in the process of facilitating and accelerating the integration of new immigrants into the majority culture of Quebec? Is the Parti Québécois in favour of maintaining a system of government funding for religiously or ethnically based educational institutions?

 Absolutely, there has never been the least dobut about that. Quebec has always had a “bipartisan” and even “tripartisan” system of support for private Schools. All the Quebec political parties in power during the past decades, whether Liberal, Union National or the Parti Québécois, have always taken a position in favor of retaining a private educational sector, supported financially by the state.

 The Parti Québécois will continue to support, financially and morally, all the so-called “confessional” schools, or those established by the cultural communities of Quebec. On condition, certainly, that these educational institutions don’t constitute a serious hindrance to a strict application of the language laws. After all, we don’t want these schools to become a means or a strategem to circumvent Bill 101, which stipulates that all children of immigrants must attend French schools.

The school is the crucible of the nation; it is incontestably the fertile ground in which the sense of national belonging truly grows. It is imperative that this educational system function in the language of the country, that doesn’t mean that one cannot rigorously protect day-to-day usage or a good understanding of one’s mother tongue.

That would absolutely be the last straw. Yes to private schools, confessional and ethnic, so long and so far as they are not an insidious means of keeping children outside of the French language and the sphere of influence of the national majority culture.

You speak of the schools as ‘‘the crucible of the nation.” Are the Jews of Quebec, and the members of the other cultural communities living in Quebec, an integral part of that “nation” in the framework of a sovereign Quebec?

I must confess to you that I am somewhat nonplussed by your question. For the simple reason that I do not understand that question; I have never understood it; and I hope, most sincerely, never to understand it. I must remind you that when Ezekiel Hart stood as a candidate in 1807 in Trois-Rivieres, he was elected by a population almost exclusively francophone. It was the British political system that ousted him and prevented him from exercising his duties as a member (of the Quebec assembly). He was, accordingly, thrown back to the francophones who, without a moment’s hesitation, re-elected him all over again. This story was not invented from whole cloth; it’s the truth. It even provoked serious upheavals at the heart of the British Empire of the time.

 Who took the disgraceful  step of instituting quotas in order to drastically limit the access of Jews to the universities, notably McGill, to the banks arid to certain professions? Certainly not the francophone community! You must avoid setting up harmful analogies. It’s not because many francophone Quebecers are nationalists that they should be systematically considered wild fascists or anti-Semites, it’s necessary, after all, to look at things with a bit more clear-headedness.

When 1 try to put these irrefutable historical facts into a certain slightly more subtle context, I’m yelled at to remember the nefarious role which Canon Groulx played throughout this story. Yes, it’s true there was a Canon Groulx. But I do not bring up Mordecai Richler here, there and everywhere, to bring to trial and judge the entire Jewish community. I categorically reject guilt by association. Canon Groulx existed, but times have changed and we live in a democratic and free society.

In my opinion, and 1 believe most sincerely that this is also the view of the great majority of Quebecers, everyone is aware that Mordecai Richler is not particularly representative of the Jewish community. Nobody thinks that and nobody has ever thought that.

With respect to this [question], I profoundly believe that whoever wishes to be a Quebecer – whoever wishes to build a life here and loves his or her native land or. new homeland enough – is a Quebecer.

What is the present slate of relations between the Parti Québécois and the leadership of the Jewish community of Quebec?

 Relations are cordial and very good. We have already had two official meetings during the past few months and a third is being set up. We very much want the Jews of Quebec to preserve their cultural heritage. I personally feel a great admiration for the absolutely extraordinary and very effective way in which your communal institutions function, particularly those which do most remarkable work in the social field. The Jews have always fitted into the cultural life of Quebec in an exemplar)’ manner.

However, I won’t keep from you that when 1 see the leaders of the Quebec Jewish community intervening in the name of all Jews in political debates, that aggravates me a great deal. When they declare that the members of your community should vote for the Yes side or vote for the No side in a referendum, I consider this type of initiative extremely dangerous.

Like all the other inhabitants of Quebec, the Jews are citizens of Quebec. To toy with [the idea of] ethnic origin as a criterion for making a political decision – as the leaders of the Jewish, Greek or Italian communities do – seems to me to be a thoughtless attitude. For these leaders, a common ethnic or religious heritage automatically implies common political reactions. I seriously deplore this manner of thinking and acting. 1 believe that each individual is completely capable, in his or her role as a citizen, of having his or her own political ideas. If we dared to do that – in the other direction – there are those who would already be denouncing us and climbing the walls!

Several well-informed observers of the Quebec political scene, notably the sovereigntist political analyst Daniel Latouche, say that there is now within the PQ a wing – marginal and with little influence – which is more and more inclined to radicalize its positions regarding the cultural communities of Quebec. According to them, the key players in this embryonic movement are encouraging the leadership of the PQ to concentrate more and more of their efforts on those segments of the population likely to prove profitable at the electoral level, rather than to continue to court the cultural minorities which, in any case, strongly reject your sovereigntist project. Is that a valid allegation?

Not at all. It’s certainly not a question of a wing or a movement acting in the grip of dogma. It’s essentially a question of strategic election arithmetic. For almost 20 years we’ve been discussing within the PQ these inescapable realities. These electoral data are also analyzed – but in reverse terms – by the Liberal Party of Quebec. For example, the Liberals have always worked actively in the Quebec Italian community to ensure a sufficiently solid electoral base. Accordingly, with the passing years; they’ve managed to plant themselves firmly in the ridings situated in north Montreal.

At the time of an electoral campaign, it’s most likely that the strategists of the Liberal party will concentrate their main efforts on the ridings and the regions where they have a chance to make electoral gains. Just like Bourassa’s political team, the PQ is also obliged to-do this kind of election arithmetic.

We ask ourselves constantly what efforts should we devote, in terms of energy, financial resources, advertising… with regard to the cultural communities, in relation to the efforts which we ought lo deploy in some very francophone ridings, far removed from the large urban centres and which, in an election, tend to exhibit somewhat conservative posit ions. That is, for example, the case in a number of francophone ridings who voted in favour of the No side during the last referendum on the federal constitutional offers.

The cultural communities have never been deserted by the PQ. There exist within our party two positions on this subject. There are those who believe that it’s, necessary to continue to work actively with these communities because of an acquired awareness and those who do it by conviction. But; in the PQ, everybody is continuing to do it. It’s more than anything a question of time and effectiveness. It plainly has nothing to do with sudden changes in the mood of a radical and dogmatic wing, as, Daniel Latouche claims.

Does a vote for the Parti Québécois in the next election mean purely and simply a vote, in favour of Quebec sovereignty? Will your sovereigntist project be ratified beforehand by the Quebec population by means of a public referendum?

This time, if we are re-elected, we will set up a referendum to achieve sovereignty. It’s not a question, as was the case in 1980, of setting up a public referendum to obtain a mandate to negotiate the sovereignty of Quebec with the Ottawa government. That must be very clear in the minds of everyone. Our primary objective has always been, and remains, the achievement of sovereignty. There are a number of stages to be gotten through before finally arriving at sovereignty: mapping out a proposed constitution; preparing the critical path for merging all the administrative services now grouped together under the two-headed federal-provincial leadership; opening discussions with Ottawa on the subject of allocating the national debt; integrating the Quebec economy into the North American free-trade zone; defining the main outlines of our economic agreements with English Canada… The final step in all of this long process will be that of holding a referendum. The question that we will then ask the population of Quebec will be devoid of ambiguities. It will be a simple question along the lines of: “On the basis of the provisional constitutional arrangements of which-you are aware, do you want Quebec to become a sovereign state on the date of …?” After that, it will be the men and women of Quebec who will have the last word.

This interview was conducted in French, and translated by Patricia Rucker.