Chapter 5

Québec Impact on Triangular Relations Politics and Security Policies

Introduction

The previous chapter assessed the economic importance of the province of , it pointed out the influence of the province on Canadian economic issues, taking as example the signature of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, which not only revealed extremely profitable for the country but for the overall Canadian provinces and the U.S., creating a more homogeneous North America. It also determined the economic influence of the province, providing evidences that even though it represents only one tenth of the whole Canada (in terms of provinces), still accounts for an undeniable percentage of the overall Canadian economy and trade with Canada’s southern neighbor, hence has enough weight to occasionally influence the Country’s trade policy. In the last chapter, it was also discussed and understood that Quebec enjoys a relatively good trade relation with the United States, thus has the ability to play a role in the Canada-U.S. bilateral policies. As well, previously shown in the first chapter of this present thesis, there exist fundamental differences between the Canadian and the Quebecois culture, and as their language, life habits and other measurable differences were compared, there still remain differences that cannot be measured i.e. the level of pacifism or antimilitarism of a population (which will be assessed in this last chapter) .

This chapter emphasizes on the fact that the Quebecois population is in majority antimilitarist, and that this antimilitarist state of mind has played several times on the province of Quebec’s public opinion, thus influencing some decisions previously taken by the federal government. As mentioned in the paragraph above, measuring the level of antimilitarism of a population is not an easy task, therefore in order to understand whether it exists or not, the explanations of some academics on some historical events will be exhibited as proof in order to establish the pacifist state of mind of a majority of “French Quebecois”. Finally, the establishment of a very probable antimilitarism Quebecois will help clarifying Quebec’s strong public opinion in disfavor of two important Canada-U.S. issues i.e. the BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) and the Iraq issues. But first, despite the fact that Quebec enjoys a potential power over the federal government due to tensions mentioned earlier, nonetheless it also enjoys an actual power within the Canadian federal parliament. The first part of this last chapter will clarify and measure that place held by the province in the parliament.

Quebec and the Parliament

To begin with, the Canadian federal Parliament consists of The Sovereign (the Governor General) and two houses, the House of Commons (lower house) and the Senate (upper house). The Senate consists of 105 Senators, which are appointed by the Governor General in accordance with the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister. In the Canadian Senate, Canada distributes 24 senators to the four largest regions i.e. Quebec, Ontario, the Maritimes provinces, and the Western provinces, whilst the seats for Newfoundland and Labrador, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, and Nunavut are assigned separately. The House of Commons consists of 308 Ministers. Its representatives are called Members of Parliament or MP’s and are elected by the population according to the country’s electoral districts during federal elections (not during provincial elections). A certain number of MP’s, given in accordance with to the size of the province in terms of population (written in the Constitution Act of 1867), is accorded to every province and territory, while each MP represents a Canadian electoral district and a particular political party. The province of Quebec, in accordance with the 1867 Constitution Act, enjoys at least the representation of 75 MP’s, and 24 Senators, which accounts for approximately one fourth of the Lower and upper House.

Representation in the House of Commons (per province)

Electoral Quotient Minimum number of seats (Average Province or Territory in accordance with the population Constitution Act, 1867 per electoral district) Special Population 2001 National Quotient clauses Newfoundland and Labrador 7 107 220 5 2 7 Prince Edward Island 4 107 220 1 3 4 Nova Scotia 11 107 220 8 3 11 New Brunswick 10 107 220 7 3 10 Quebec 75 107 220 68 7 75 Ontario 95 107 220 106 0 106 Manitoba 14 107 220 10 4 14 Saskatchewan 14 107 220 9 5 14 Alberta 21 107 220 28 0 28 British Columbia 28 107 220 36 0 36 Nunavut 1 – – – 1 Northwest Territories 1 – – – 1 Yukon Territory 1 – – – 1 TOTAL 282 308 Source: Jackson & Jackson, Politics in Canada, Prentice Hall, Toronto, pg 438

This being said, a further explanation the power of the two houses is necessary in order to comprehend the considerable place that occupies the province of Quebec within the Parliament. To begin with, the Sovereign has no power over decision- makings, it is purely symbolic and her duty is only ceremonial. The Senate rarely opposes the decisions of the House of Commons. The lower house or House of Commons has much more power over decision-makings than the upper house, it is the dominant house of the Parliament, and the Prime Minister requires the support of the majority of the lower house to stay in office. That being explained, the voting pattern of the inhabitants of the province of Quebec (during federal elections) allows it to be well represented in the Parliament. As shown by the tables below, Quebecers have the tendency to vote in majority for one political party, logically the more MP’s held by a party, the more power or influence on the federal government’s decisions the latter will hold.

Table 13

Voting Pattern of Quebecers (Federal Elections 1980-1997) 1980

Liberals Conservatives NDP Canada 147 103 32 Ontario 52 38 5 Quebec 74 1 0 1984

Liberals Conservatives NDP Canada 40 211 30 Ontario 14 67 13 Quebec 17 58 0 1988

Liberals Conservatives NDP Canada 88 169 43 Ontario 43 46 10 Quebec 12 63 0 1993

ND Liberals Conservatives Reform Bloc Quebecois P Canada 177 2 9 52 54 Ontario 98 0 0 1 0 Quebec 19 1 0 0 54 1997

ND Liberals Conservatives Reform Bloc Quebecois P Canada 155 20 21 60 44 Ontario 101 1 0 0 0 Quebec 26 5 0 0 44 Source: Marianopolis College, Department of Quebec History http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/stats/fedelect.htm

This means that from time to time the population of Quebec can be extremely well represented in the strongest house (House of Commons), and since the Prime minister needs a majority of support from the MP’s, thus he needs to be able to satisfy the requirements of the considerable number of Quebecer MP’s that are seated at the Parliament. Sometimes the province can represent almost a fourth of the country within the parliament; for instance as shown by the table 13, in 1980 the Liberals had 74 seats in the House of Commons which gave them considerable power to represent Quebec’s public opinion. Interestingly, in 2007 the Bloc Quebecois (pro Quebec) holds only 49 seats in the House of Commons, which still allows the province to represent a sixth of the country 1.

Consequently, for different issues, if the Canadian public opinion is divided in half, as for the Iraq, the BMD or even the CUFTA issues, while Quebec’s public opinion is almost unanimous, therefore Quebec as a chance to redress the balance in favor of its own position. As it can be understood, Quebecois who voted in majority for the PQ during the federal elections of 1988, found itself enjoying 63 seats in favor of the Canada United States Free Trade Agreement, and even if the rest of Canada did not favor it, the province still was able to change the public opinion in his favor and redress the balance slightly over 50%, which is enough to pass laws. The province of Quebec did it several times during Canada’s history, and it is well recognized that the rest of the country, which public opinion is mostly homogenous, find it considerably unjust. The province of Quebec has often been the biggest opposition in the Canadian Federal Parliament.

Another equally important fact that needs to be pointed out is the fact that, historically, there was a considerably high percentage of Canadian Prime Ministers that originated from the province of Quebec (Quebecers Prime Ministers). St-Laurent, Mulroney, Trudeau, Chrétien, Martin, are only a few of the long lineage of Quebecois Prime Ministers. During the last 50 years more than …….% of Canadian Prime Ministers have been Quebecois, and even though it is ideal to think that Prime Ministers were objective, it is hard to believe and easier to think that they sometimes favored Quebec over other provinces.

So as pointed out earlier, not only does the province enjoy an actual power over the country’s decision-making with its considerable economic power and its influent place within the Canadian Federal Parliament, but as well, it sometimes manages to

1 David Ljunggren, Quebec's separatist boss quits after election loss , Reuters, Tuesday May 8 2007. use its potential power and play the Quebec card in order to obtain what it wants from the rest of the federation. To understand the origin of the difference of public opinion between Quebec and the rest of Canada on military and defense issues, the explanation of the province’s historical antimilitarism will follow.

3.1 Brief explanation of Quebec’s Anti-Militarism

To begin with, as Robitaille interestingly ask, if there exist a pacifist tradition ongoing in the province of Quebec or “is there something in the Quebec soul that would predispose people to resist going to war?” It is primordial to take a brief look at the province’s past in order to comprehend the antimilitarist state of mind of the Quebecois population. It is true that many would probably argue and say that it is impossible to prove whether a nation or a population is pacifist or not, or whether Quebecers are antimilitarists or not, therefore to further clarify the existence of such antimilitarism, the opinion of some Quebecois academics will be explained. Serge Mongeau, Pierre Martin, Antoine Robitaille, or even the University of Sherbrooke’s political scientist Jean-Herman Guay, who speak of the existence of an “antimilitarist Quebecois” that has been present for as long as the existence of the province 2 . According to Jean-Herman Guay, the history of Quebec shows little sign of violence, and as will be further discussed, he is not the only one who thinks that way 3.

Certain academics prefer using the term “pacifist” to define the state of mind of the population of the province of Quebec, however for the purpose of this thesis, the term “antimilitarist” will rather be used. Is there a slice of antimilitarism present within Quebecers’ souls? According to Guay, even at the time of the worst Wars (WWI, WWII) the percentage of Quebecers that went to the front and participated remained considerably low, and as will further be explained by both conscriptions were equally not welcomed by Quebecers 4 . Interestingly, Robitaille gives his perspective on

2 Mongeau is a Canadian publisher who contributed to the theory on the pacifism of the population of Quebec. 3 Antoine Robitaille, Are Quebecers Fundamentally Peaceful, Even Pacifist, People? , Translation of the Annuaire du Quebec in Inroads magazine by Julian Olson, Winter 2004. 4 Jean-Herman Guay created the “ Bilan du siècle ”, which explaines some of the most marking events of the Quebec society. He is also the president of the “Commission Politique du Bloc Québécois”. Bilan du Siecle http://www.bilan.usherb.ca/bilan/ Quebec antimilitarism through the analysis of national anthems. The latter compared the national anthems of a series of country, and found that whilst the large majority of nations or countries’ national anthems put their focus on war heroes and military victories, the foreseen national anthem of Quebec (in case of independence) would speak of love. Obviously, this is the lyrics of a song, thus it does not represent the state of mind of an entire population, but truly gives an insight of the possible antimilitarism present within the “culture Quebecoise” or the Quebec culture.

Serge Mongeau, who is neither a very famous writer nor an eminent researcher, wrote a paper worthy of note on the pacifist state of mind of the Quebecois population. His research was published, liked by some and criticized by others i.e. Jocelyn Coulon and Béatrice Richard, who found it not accurate and erroneous, and sometimes even one-sided. Mongeau’s greatest contribution is an enumeration of historical events that focus on the strong public opinion of Quebecers against a series of famous wars and conflicts. Consequently, some of Mongeau’s most persuasive examples will be explained in order to further understand Quebec’s antimilitarism. The behaviors of the population on six specific historical moments might explain the “Antimilitarism Quebecois”; the American Revolution (1775-1777), the Patriot rebellion (1837-1838), the Boer War (1899-1902), the opposition to the Canadian Navy (1910), and the World War I (1914-1919) & II (1939-1945) 5.

It is as soon as the 16 th Century that Quebec’s antimilitarism began to show up. First it was during the Campaign against the American Revolution, where a large proportion of Quebecois, hands in their pockets, took the decision not to help England, their supposed motherland, fight against the colonies of the South. Instead, they began a series of anti-war demonstrations against the British mobilization, and held secret illegal meetings to discuss anti war matters through conscripted militias (Trois Rivieres, the Lower St. Lawrence and Île d'Orléans). It is argued that while England wanted its colonies of the New Land (and Quebec was an English colony) to fight against the Union, a large majority of Quebecers refused to confront the Americans 6. Were Quebecois supporting the American cause, or were they only against the idea of

5 The six historical moments mentioned above are the center of Mongeau’s hypothesis. Serge Mongeau, Pour un Pays Sans Armee, Écosociété, Feb 15 1993, 186 pgs. 6 Earl H. Fry, Québec’s Relations with the United states, American Review of Canadian Studies, Summer 2002, Vol.32, 323 pages, p.20. War? Those who fought were separated into two, some fought against Britain and some fought against the American, thus it is more likely to believe that the majority of Quebecois who did not fight had for main reason antimilitarism instead of indifference. It is argued that the position of the population to stand against any kind of war and refuse to fight isn’t new, and that it was part of Quebecers ideology at least 250 years ago and was demonstrated by the behavior of its inhabitants more than once throughout the province’s history as will be demonstrated. As Mongeau argues, this historical event clearly shows that at the time of the American Revolution the inhabitants of Quebec preferred peace instead of war 7.

Mongeau also cites the Patriot rebellion of 1837-1838 and the Boer War of 1899 as examples, since they both reflect the “anti war” ideology characterizing the population of Quebec. Thus, let us take the Boer War as example 8. In short, the population of Quebec was asked by the Canadian Prime Minister of the time (Laurier) to go to War for the sake of Canada, but whilst the rest of Canadian agreed to go the people from Quebec decided not to. Instead, they decided to plot against War (remember that at that time tensions existed between Canada and Quebec, but the desire for independence was not present). Why would the majority of a population decide rather not to fight for its country, neither against it? According to historian Michel Brunet Laurier's opponent, Henri Bourassa, had understood the population of Quebec and had previously stated that he was against any kind of “external war”. Interestingly, the people of Quebec were fervent of Bourassa 9 . Finally, Laurier decided to send volunteers to South Africa, and as he had predicted the large majority of volunteers was not Quebecois 10 .

The behavior of the population during the first and the Second World War characterizes the most the aversion of Quebecers for war. As explained by Robitaille, during the First World War, the federal government of Canada had established the 1917 Military Service Act, which was to obligate the male population to receive

7 Antoine, Robitaille, Quebecers: A Pacifist People , Inroads, : Winter 2004., Issue 14, pg.62, 14 pgs. 8 Also known as the South African War, or South African Gold War. 9 The Canadian Encyclopedia: Bourassa by Brunet http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0000912 10 National United Kingdom Archives http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pathways/census/events/britain7.htm military training and serve in the infantry. As clarified by Mongeau, the Act was strongly rejected by the French Canadians, who also began to demonstrate in public, in many cities of the province, their disgust for war. As recalled by Roland Lemieux, a Quebecois octogenarian “ I remember my father telling us about the hatred of the population of Quebec for the conscription, people running and hiding in the woods for days or even weeks in order to avoid getting caught by the authority and be forced to receive military training ” 11 . According to the latter, it is true that some refused to fight for Britain only because of the French/English rivalry, but that the majority just did not want to go to the front.

According to Robitaille, in order to avoid going to war, a certain percentage of the population began to talk about secession. Many other events, like the opposition of the Quebecers to the establishment of the Canadian navy 12 , could also be mentioned in order to verify the certainty of an antimilitarist Quebecois. Still, for many, the supreme example of antimilitarism occurred during the Second World War’s conscription; as Serge Mongeau explains, the federal government this time decided to do a plebiscite to see whether the Canadian population would agree to a new conscription or not. The event was a clear illustration of antimilitarism, whilst English Canadian accepted the principle of conscription with a 79%, people from the province of Quebec rejected it with a 72% majority 13 , and again an interesting portion of youngsters in the province took refuge in the woods14 .

Historical events can make one comprehend the origin of antimilitaris, however, it remains important understand whether Quebecers, even nowadays, hold the most antimilitarist position on political issues in the whole Canada. Robitaille quotes Jacques Godbout which pointed out in an article written in L'Actualité , that Quebecers

11 Interview with Roland Lemieux, January 2007, Mr. Lemieux was born in 1927, in the province of Quebec, and is considerably familiar with the issue, he is a well known retired accountant living in the Sherbrooke region of the province. Conscription: The Canadian Ecyclopedia http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0001859 12 In 1910, while Prime Minister Laurier wanted to establish a Canadian Navy to help Britain’s national defense, Henri Bourassa, Quebec Prime Minister, passed a resolution (July 17) that blamed the federal Government for throwing the Country into militarism, and misusing federal founds. 13 Antoine Robitaille, Are Quebecers Fundamentally Peaceful, Even Pacifist, People? , Translation of the Annuaire du Quebec in Inroads magazine by Julian Olson, Winter 2004. 14 Elizabeth H. Armstrong, The Crisis of Quebec, 1914-1918 , New York, Columbia University Press, 1937, 270 pgs. prefer remember martyrs that have suffered for the people rather than heroes, and contrarily to many other nations, Quebec has fewer heroes than martyrs. Names like René Lévesque or Pierre Laporte, as well as Jean de Bréboeuf can often be heard or seen as street names in cities around the province, even at present time it is not rare to speak of people that died for the well being of the Quebecois nation 15 .

It is necessary to mention that, whilst the province of Quebec was believed to be the most pro-American province in Canada regarding political issues, is has done a 180 degrees spin, and now in the 21 st Century the province is perceived as the most anti- American Canadian province. According to Peter Donolo, Quebecers usually regarded Americans more favorably than English Canada, since U.S. inhabitants have historically never mistreated the people of eastern Canada 16 . As Donolo points out, even the spouses of two important Quebecois politicians Jacques Parizeau and Lucien Bouchard are American-born, but more importantly even Quebec’s historically most independentist Prime Minister René Lévesque pointedly chose to attach himself to the U.S. rather than Canadian army as a war correspondent during the Second World War 17 .

Consequently, for a few years a large proportion of politicians and academics, like Graham Fraser, have been speaking and writing about a Quebecois anti-Americanism. It is clear that it is easier to find anti-American roots rather than concentrate on political position, in this present paper, no anti Americanism will be assessed, only responses to political and military issues will. It is considerably clear for the average Quebecois population that there is no common anti-Americanism present within the province of Quebec, however, that the American foreign policy has changed drastically post September 11, putting much more emphasis on defense issues, reflecting insecurity and violence 18 . Thus the Quebecois response to violence has, through its history, often been perceived as anti-Americanism, when it was in fact only truly pro-peace stance. As will be shown in the next pages, Quebecers, which

15 IBID Robitaille 16 Peter Donolo was Jean Chrétien's communications director from 1993 to 1999. Peter Donolo, The Indistinct Society , Maclean's, Vol.117, Iss.20, Mai 2004. 17 Peter Donolo, The Indistinct Society , Maclean’s , Vol.117, Issue 20, May 2004. 18 Paul C. Adams, "The September 11 Attacks as Viewed from Quebec: The Small-Nation Code inGeopolitical Discourse", Political Geography 23 (2004): 765-95, citation at p. 786 have through history often had the sentiment of being treated unfairly, often tend to support the underdogs, having itself an underdog history.

Table 14

Is the United States too hasty to make use of military forces in other countries? Canada Atlantic Quebec Ontario Prairies Alberta British Provinces Columbia

Agree 61% 52% 75% 55% 56% 58% 62%

Disagree 31% 41% 22% 34% 36% 34% 25% No opinion 9% 7% 3% 12% 8% 9% 13% *Leger Marketing Report, L’attitude des Canadiens à la suite du conflit en Irak (Canadian Attitude following the Iraq Conflict)

As shown by the previous table, more than three Canadians out of five (61%) agree to say that the United States is too prompt or too hasty to make use of military power in foreign countries, hence resulting in an enhancement of violence and conflict as well demonstrating a severe lack of human right. Interestingly, three Quebecers out of four believe that the United States selfishly uses its military power to obtain national interests. The latter table also shows a clear difference of opinion of approximately one fourth (25%) between the province of Quebec, the most antimilitarist province, and the Atlantic Provinces, which only half of its respondents agreed with the statement. British Columbia ranks second with 62% of its respondents who agree to say that the U.S. hastily uses military forces overseas, which still represents almost a 15% difference with respondents from the province of Quebec. Interestingly, the province of BC public opinion on defense matters is often closer to the public opinion of the Eastern province, probably due to the fact that it is the Canadian province outside Quebec who has the largest proportion of French Canadians (or Quebecois born Canadians).

Similarly, on the question do you believe that the American foreign policy has a positive impact on Canada ; respondents from the province of Quebec had the most negative opinion of the American foreign policy’s impact on the country. Does it mean that Quebecois are anti-American? It is easier to see it that way, however, this paper affirms that it has absolutely nothing to do with anti-Americanism, and that the response of the inhabitants of Quebec is purely related to a strong antimilitarist feeling that characterizes the province. As it has been proven in the last chapter, people from Quebec are most of the time pro American, and the policy of the provincial government of Quebec is very American oriented, therefore it is truly misunderstanding the province’s state of mind to affirm that float an anti-American resentment in the air of the province.

Table 15

In General, do you believe that the American foreign policy has a positive or a negative impact on Canada?

Positive Negative No impact No opinion Male 24% 47% 22% 6% Respondents Female 15% 52% 19% 13% Respondents Atlantic 28% 34% 25% 13% Provinces Quebec 19% 56% 20% 6% Ontario 17% 48% 25% 11% Prairies 19% 54% 18% 9% Alberta 22% 51% 16% 12% British 23% 50% 13% 13% Columbia Canada 20% 50% 21% 10% Leger &Leger Marketing: March 2003, Question on American Foreign Policy.

At first glance of the table above, while it asks whether the American foreign policy negatively affects Canada or not, it is easier to perceive Quebec’s negative 56% as a reaction to Anti-Americanism. However, what this table really shows is the extent to which the Iraq issue has influenced the way Americans are perceived by some Quebecois. The state of antimilitarism that distinguishes the province of Quebec from the other nine, explains well the very pacifists antiwar movements present, especially in Montreal and Quebec City. As this fifth chapter will demonstrate, Quebec’s public opinion influences, from time to time, the stance of the government, especially on military and defense issues. As will be further explained, the positions of the inhabitants of Quebec on the Iraq and the BMD issues were the most disapproving of the whole Canada.

3.2 The Iraq Issue and Quebec’s Public Opinion

The event that happened on the 11 th of September 2001 considerably changed the North American continental state of affairs. The United States government, with George W. Bush at its head, slightly transformed its perspective on defense matters, and even began to blame Canada’s immigration policy for the increase of terrorism occurring on the American soil, thus influencing to some extent the perspective of Canadians toward America. Post 9/11, the American government took two interesting alternatives; first in 2003, due to the insecurity that brought the terrorist event the United States, decided that it was time to attack Iraq (supposedly responsible for 9/11), second it planned to go through with its famous Ballistic Missile Defense shield, which according to president Bush, would be able to destroy missiles aimed at the U.S 19 .

Jocelyn Letourneau, interestingly points out that the previously exhibited antimilitarism characterizing the Quebec population is rooted in the “idea of Suffering”, hence has been influencing many Canada-U.S. bilateral political issues, i.e. the Canadian refusal to participate to the Iraq incursion. According to the latter, the concept of suffering is a central element of the Quebec identity, she explains that the

19 Guy Lachapelle and Claude Cote, La reelection de Bush et L’impact sur les Relations Canado- Americaine: une Perspective Quebecoise (Bush’s Reelection and its Impact on the Canada-U.S. Bilateral relations: A Quebec Perspective , Policy Options, Dec. 2004-Jan. 2005, 2pages. population, having suffered, and through the state of their identity , have developed a model of response that is clearly opposed to the idea of suffering 20 . She states that the population of the province of Quebec can only express themselves by opposing any idea of suffering , therefore that the position of Quebecers on the Iraq issue, was well characterized by the previously mentioned model. According to Pierre Dostie, the hostility of the inhabitants on the Iraq issue and the Quebecois anti-militarism is closely related to the Quebec nation struggle for independence, Quebecois being in solidarity with the struggles of the people of the world 21 . The historical struggle of a nation, as previously cited, took the population of Quebec to a more compassionate and morale extent, thus morale for Quebecois became for many more important than capital. It is largely believed, and shown by polls, that a very weak percentage of Quebecois would agree to go and kill an X amount of Iraqi people only in order to maintain and enjoy good economic relation with the Southern hegemony 22 .

According Letourneau, Quebecois have developed a more sensitive ability, throughout generations, to put themselves into others shoes, and as Robitaille points out, quoting Letourneau, the American and British invasion of Iraq was perceived foremost by Quebecois as a cause of suffering for the Iraqi population 23 . Therefore it is comprehensible that a so large proportion of the population was in opposition to the Iraq war. The biggest city in the province of Quebec, Montreal, is far from being the largest city in the Americas ; however, it held America’s (possibly the World) largest march against the Iraq invasion on March of 2003. On the 15 th of March, more than 250,000 people forming two different groups of people, simultaneously left from Guy Street in the west and Berri in the east, and converged in the middle of downtown Montreal to protest against the War in Iraq and the American decision. The march was the reflection of the new Quebec, regrouping people from every social classes and ethnicity 24 .

20 Antoine Robitaille, Are Quebecers Fundamentally Peaceful, Even Pacifist, People? , Translation of the Annuaire du Quebec in Inroads magazine by Julian Olson, Winter 2004. 21 Pierre Dostie, Bernard Rioux, Why Québec Says No to War, Canadian Dimension, Vol.39, Issue 3. 22 Leger &Leger Marketing: March 2003, when Canadians were the most favorable to the Iraq war. 23 Antoine Robitaille, Are Quebecers Fundamentally Peaceful, Even Pacifist, People? , Translation of the Annuaire du Quebec in Inroads magazine by Julian Olson, Winter 2004. 24 Benoit Aubin, In Sync Against War , Maclean’s , Vol.116, Issue 13, p.60, 1p.2003 The question is, why was the province so unanimously against the American decision to invade Iraq? Was it the reemerging anti-Americanism of the inhabitants of the province, or the clearly present antimilitarism ongoing within its border? According to Stephane Roussell, an international relations specialist at the Université du Quebec à Montreal , neither a rejection of American products nor a boycott of American values was seen in the province of Quebec, therefore, as Roussell believes the march was truly pro-peace instead of anti-American. Francine Némeh, who was one of the organizers of the march, interestingly explains that contrarily to the rest of Canada, and this counts for issues other than the Iraq intervention, Quebecers are less likely to be affected by brainwashing campaigns aired by CNN or other American medias. The medias in the province are more diversified than other Canadian provinces; Quebecers enjoy newspapers originating from the rest of the world, which enables them to be sometimes more objective on international issues 25 .

According to surveys executed by the marketing firm Leger & Leger in March and Mai of 2003, people from the province of Quebec, especially the francophone population, in majority thought the intervention in Iraq was not justified. In March, it was 72% of the whole province of Quebec that was opposed to the war, and even if it slightly diminished, still they were more than 50% of opposition at its lowest point in May. When in March, only 33 percent of the Canadian population considered that the war in Iraq was reasonable, two months later the percentage of population that believed in the Iraq intervention was up to 46% 26 . According to Radio Canada News, the reason for this surprising change of opinion was due to the fall of the Saddam regime, and the fact that a considerable number of Canadians believed the world would become slightly more dangerous following the fall of Baghdad, hence that the need of American and English military troops on the Iraqi soil would become a necessity 27 . However, as shown by the table below, while 57% of the Atlantic respondents were favoring war, and a significant proportion of the Canadian population also agreed to the intervention, more than half of the Quebec population was still against it.

25 Benoit Aubin, In Sync Against War , Maclean’s , Vol.116, Issue 13, p.60, 1p.2003 26 Jean-Marc Leger, Leger & Leger Marketing, L’attitude des Canadiens a la suite du Conflit en Irak (The Canadian Attitude Toward the Iraq Conflict) , Press Canadienne, Mai 2003, 8pages. 27 Radio Canada News, L’opinion des Canadiens a Change après la Chute de Saddam , Mai 11 2003. www.radio-canada.ca

It is obvious that polls like the latter considerably affect the decisions of the government, whilst numerous Members of Parliaments and Senators are present in the federal Parliament to back the province of Quebec’s public opinion, and that most of Canadian Prime Ministers are Quebecois. Consequently, Chrétien’s (a Quebecois) position on the issue is believed to have been strongly influenced by the response of the Quebecois populace.

Table 16 Now that Saddam’s regime is over, do you believe that the American intervention in Iraq was justified?

Yes No No opinion Atlantic 57% 28% 15% Provinces Quebec 38% 51% 11% Ontario 46% 39% 15% Prairies 50% 42% 8% Alberta 59% 37% 5% British 44% 42% 14% Columbia Canada 46% 41% 12% Leger &Leger Marketing: March 2003, when Canadians were the most favorable to the Iraq war.

Table 17 Proportion of the Canadian Population who thought the U.S. Military Intervention In Iraq was Justified

QuickTime?and a TIFF (LZW) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

From: Leger & Leger Marketing 2003.

Surprisingly, only two days after the Montreal peace rally, Jean Chrétien and the federal government announced that the country would not participate to the Iraq intervention unless approved by the . Was it the strength of the Quebecer protest that unexpectedly affected Canadian foreign policy? As for every issue, some said “yes” others said “no’, and since almost the entire Quebecois population was opposed to join the United States in the war in Iraq, and that as previously shown the people of Quebec really proved to know how to protest, it is more likely to believe that the weight of the population on the Iraq issue really was considerably heavy on the balance, heavy enough to affect the Chrétien policy. It is not to be forgotten that, as well, the province of Quebec holds a very informal power over Canada’s decision-makings, and as for issues like the latter, when more than three fourth of Quebec’s population disagree, even if it is very difficult for a Canadian Prime Minister who is stuck between Quebec and the rest of the country, often it is easier to listen to Quebecois and avoid a third referendum.

Did the Canadian federal government decide not to go to Iraq due to the strong opposition of the Quebec population? It is strongly possible, that it remembered Afghanistan and the response of the Quebec public opinion during the issue, thus did not want to give another reason for the inhabitants of the province to believe in independence again. The Canadian government did participate to the Afghan offensive, they sent a 2,000 personnel troop and a series of ships to Afghanistan even when demonstrations were taking places in many districts of Montreal, letters were sent to protest against the Afghan incursion, and surveys were demonstrating that 64% of the population of Quebec did not support the offensive. As also mentioned by Anne Legare, while at the end of the 1990s the province of Quebec was considered the most pro-American province in Canada, the Afghanistan issue created a drop of popularity of 22%, and Quebec became the least pro-American province 28 . Even in the case of war against terrorism, whilst the rest of Canada (outside Quebec) polled 78% in favor of the importance of helping the U.S. and the rest of the World fight terrorism, Quebec held an average of 66% (90% of Manitobans and 86% of inhabitant of the Atlantic region were in favor) 29 .

It is not true that the province of Quebec always influences Canadian decision- makings, sometimes the public opinion of its inhabitant completely differs from the rest of Canada; it is true, however, that the government of Canada tries very hard to control the possible conflicts of interest that might occur from time to time between Quebec and the other provinces, therefore it is understandable that the riots against the war in Iraq along with surveys showing more than 70% opposition might have more than strongly affected the decision of the government to refuse to participate to the Iraq offensive. It is strongly plausible that if the Quebec public opinion had been in favor of the Iraq offensive, the Canadian government would have decided to join the U.S. and U.K. team.

According to Guy Lachapelle and Claude Cote, a large proportion of the population of Quebec, which was from far the most favorable to the Canada-U.S. Fee Trade Agreement, were more than concern by the possible negative effects the Iraq conflict would probably have on the Quebecois economy 30 . Quebec had the highest percentage of people opposed to the Iraq conflict, and it rapidly spread to the rest of

28 Anne Legaré, Le Québec otage de ses alliés: Les relations du Québec avec la France et les États-Unis (Montréal: VLB Éditeur, 2003), pp. 280-81 29 Center for Research and Information on Canada, Canadians Oppose US Missile Defence System by a Small Majority , November 2004. 30 Guy Lachapelle and Claude Cote, La reelection de Bush et L’impact sur les Relations Canado- Americaine: une Perspective Quebecoise (Bush’s Reelection and its Impact on the Canada-U.S. Bilateral relations: A Quebec Perspective, Policy Options, Dec. 2004-Jan. 2005, 2pages. the country. Following the Iraq issue, the Bush administration began to be extremely unpopular in the province of Quebec, at a point where according to a Leger & Leger omnibus pole only 6% of the Quebec population would have voted to reelect Bush. Fortunately, Quebec did not suffer short-term boycott from the United States, and the anti-Bush sentiment characterizing the post Iraq issue Quebec did not affect the considerable importance of their bilateral trade.

BMD

In the month of February 2004, the new Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin told his decision not to participate to the Ballistic Missile Defense issue. On the television, in front of a Canadian and American audience, the latter expressed that Canada had other defense priorities. What was he referring to? What kind of other defense policies does Canada plan on establishing? In this part of the last chapter, the real origin of Martin’s decision on the BMD will be assessed. Evidence of the strong opposition of Quebec to participate to the BMD will be given, in order to demonstrate that again Quebec’s position on the issue was different from the position of the rest of the country.

It is clearly understood that domestic tensions between the country and Quebec have been ongoing for generations, it is as well comprehended that the province’s actual power is considerable. Quebec represents a substantial percentage of the Canadian economic power, its GDP is ranked second among Canadian provinces, while its territory accounts as the largest province in the federation, and its population corresponds to one fourth of the total national population. Moreover, the province of Quebec enjoys excellent trade relations with the United States, and as well shown in the fourth chapter, signed a series of bilateral agreements with countries around the World, including the United States. The province is internationally active, it has extensive relations with members of the francophonie , and is often * ranked as the most internationally represented and recognized sub-government in the World. For all the reasons mentioned above and more, the weight of the province’s potential power on the Canadian balance can be considered important. But more importantly, it represents one fourth of the Canadian Parliament, thus for a new Prime Minister about to face his first elections, it was more than necessary to get the support of the population of Quebec.

It was previously shown in the fourth chapter that in 1988, Canadian nationalists blamed the province of Quebec for the signature of the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement, and they were right. In the fifth chapter, in 2003 American blamed the province of Quebec for the refusal of the Canadian federal government to participate to the Iraq initiative, and they were right. On military and defense issues, and this is for the whole of Quebec history, the inhabitants of the province have been revolted against war, have marched for peace, have ran to avoid the front, and have yelled against supposedly too imposing military budget; therefore the inhabitants of Quebec were also blamed for the refusal of the Canadian government to subscribe to the Ballistic Missile Defense issue. Even in the case of NORAD, while the rest of Canada polled 78% in its favor, Quebec polled 50% 31 . As pointed out by Pierre Martin, as always the Quebec exception on the matter of Defense is present and the province public opinion, as will be exhibited, was strongly against the American BMD.

It is interesting to mention that in 1988, prior to the CUFTA, many Canadian were against continentalism, trying to defend their point of view with the population of Quebec, saying that it would reduce the importance of Canada in North America; fifteen years later, however, the province of Quebec was blamed by Canadian continentalists, which were saying that Quebec was not going at the same speed as the Americas (North America). As Pierre Dostie mentions, it is true that the population of Quebec polled more than two third against the BMD, and that it was by far the

* Some periodicals affirm that Taiwan is the most represented sub government in the United States. i.e. Earl Fry. 31 Center for Research and Information on Canada, Canadians Oppose US Missile Defence System by a Small Majority , November 2004. province that was the strongest against it 32 . Many reasons might as well explain the position of many Quebecois on the issue. For some it was an economic choice, but for the majority it was only the old Quebec exception on defense issues (Quebec antimilitarist). As previously shown, Quebec’s past history demonstrated that for most issues related to military or defense the public opinion of the province was always unfavorable. Even the results of polls on recent events like Afghanistan, Iraq, or the BMD clearly show Quebec’s antimilitarist tendency.

As pointed out in a COMPAS survey for the National Post on the Canadian public opinion concerning the BMD issue, Quebecois were more than 70% against it, while the rest of Canada agreed more than 60% to collaborate with the United States 33 . As Conrad Winn president of COMPAS points out, it was not the first time that Quebec and the rest of Canada had opposed positions, and as the table below obviously demonstrates, the small 54% majority opposition to the collaboration of the country to the American missile defense mechanism clearly depended on the immense strength of Quebec’s public opinion 34 .

Table 18

Which of the following opinions of President Bush’s commitment to a missile shield is closer to your own?

32 Dostie, Pierre, and Rioux, Bernard, Why Québec Says No to War , Canadian Dimension, Vol.39, Issue 3. 33 COMPAS Survey for the National Post, Missile Defence: Small, Soft, Quebec-Based Majority Opposes It in Practice While Backing It in Principle, Big Majority Condemns Ottawa’s Lack of Public Discussion , COMPAS Inc. Public Opinion and Customer Research February 28, 2005. 34 IBID. QuickTime?and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

COMPAS: Survey on the BMD.

The table 18 above shows without a doubt that Quebec was the strongest against the BMD issue (Qc 69, Bloc Quebecois 72 in disfavor of the issue). According to the same polls, Canada was extremely divided toward the Ballistic Missile Defense issue, a large percentage of Canadians as well thought the federal government seriously lacked public consultation. As shown by the next table, 71% of the Canadian respondents believed that the federal government had consulted “too little” or “far too little” the population. Interestingly, whilst the population of the rest of Canada was almost divided half/half, the population of Quebec was not. For instance on the question “should Canada help defend against missiles just as we have done in the case of bombers and terrorists” 56% of Canadian agreed, whilst only 33% of Quebecois had the same opinion.

The arguments in favor of the BMD were mostly “continentalists” i.e. “Canada needs to lean closer to North America”, “Canada should help defend against missiles just as we have done in the case of bombers and terrorists”, “Canada depends so much on the U.S. for our exports that it would be risky to offend them over missile defense when we would benefit from defense anyhow”, finally, “We need to protect our cities because we do have enemies, as stated clearly by Osama Bin Laden”; the arguments against the BMD were slightly more nationalistic i.e. “Canada cannot be a strong independent country if it leaves its defense to its neighbor”, “Canada will be protected by the BMD even if it does not subscribe to it, the U.S. will not allow anyone to attack North America”, “It would be a serious waist of money to buy a Missile Defense that as a slight chance of intercepting missiles, which have only a slight chance of being launched” 35 . 23 janvier 2006. 14 Avril 2003

As also pointed out by Conrad Winn, 31 %, which represents a sizable percentage the population of Quebec does not only believe that the country should not collaborate with the United States on the BMD issue, but more that Canada should not even have a military at all. Concerning the population of Quebec, 60% believe that if Canada had to participate to the BMD, the country should not pay for it and at least let the United States disburse 36 .

Table 19

Could you please tell me if the government has consulted the public...about missile defense?

QuickTime?and a TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor are needed to see this picture.

COMPAS: Survey on the BMD.

As it has been shown in the previous pages, the Quebec population was strongly in disfavor of the BMD issue, and was able to influence the whole Canadian public opinion, and increase it to a 54% against it. It is more than necessary to point out, however, that the main reason for Martin’s refusal had way less to do with national

35 COMPAS Survey for the National Post, Missile Defence: Small, Soft, Quebec-Based Majority Opposes It in Practice While Backing It in Principle, Big Majority Condemns Ottawa’s Lack of Public Discussion , COMPAS Inc. Public Opinion and Customer Research February 28, 2005. 36 COMPAS Survey for the National Post, Missile Defence: Small, Soft, Quebec-Based Majority Opposes It in Practice While Backing It in Principle, Big Majority Condemns Ottawa’s Lack of Public Discussion , COMPAS Inc. Public Opinion and Customer Research February 28, 2005 public opinion but more with “parliamentarism”. David Rudd believes that the Prime Minister’s decision to not participate with the United States in the North American missile defense “ was driven by his priority of gaining a parliamentary majority, and particularly by his hopes of re-gaining seats in Quebec, where opposition to ballistic missile defense is strongest ”37 . It was as well mentioned in the Ottawa Citizen on October 2006, that joining the BMD would eventually hurt every party’s chance of electoral success, especially in the province of Quebec 38 .

As explained earlier, Quebec seriously accounts in the parliament and a majority of Quebec seats would facilitate the job of every Prime Minister. Therefore, at a moment when the country’s public opinion was equally divided, when the only major opposition came from the most problematic Canadian province, and at a period when the Liberals needed Quebec seats the most, Martin only rationally gave the liberals and himself a chance and refused to participate to the BMD, even when it meant going against the American National Interest.

It is important to mention that there are probably other factors then the Quebec factor that are influent in issues like the BMD or the Iraq refusals. Following the latter arguments and survey results, however, it would be ridiculous to neglect the influence of the province and its public opinion in the decision-making of both issues. Quebec holds a considerable place in the decision-making of the Canadian Federal Government, and though sometimes it influences a lot and other times less, it always has a word to say. It is true that issues like the softwood lumber issue or other American economic protectionist issues might as well influence the government to take decisions that go against the American National Interest, however, as proven before it is equally important if not more important to listen to the public opinion of other provinces, especially Quebec. While the latter holds more than one fourth of the seats in both houses of the parliament, and sometimes even decides to make use of its potential power and play the Quebec card, sometimes the federal government does not even have a choice. When the United States accounts so much for Canada,

37 David Rudd , Muddling Through on missile Defence: The Politics of Indecision, Option Politiques May 2005, p.1-5. 38 Senator: “We Canadians Need to Defend Ourselves”, Ottawa Citizen, October 13, 2006. http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/index.html maintaining a united Canada still remains a priority.