| Introducing Inroads | |
Introducing Inroads #4 | ||
|
We have all heard a great deal recently about the costs and constitutional validity of Quebec independence. Yet in the cacophony of conflicting figures and scenarios, wider dimensions of the issue are left unexplored. Does nationalism make any sense in today's world? And if so, are there political forms it can take other than independent statehood? This is the question posed in the ten articles that together, but from different angles and perspectives, address the main theme of this issue of Inroads. No single article answers it, but each sheds a particular light on the question. Taken together, they provide a comprehensive and unique illumination of the future Canadians and Quebeckers will share — whatever the outcome and timing of the Quebec referendum. We begin with two representative Quebec positions, a nationalist one by editor Henry Milner; and a federalist one by Stéphane Dion. Co-editor John Richards adds an external voice, calling for provincial control over language. Two opposing English Canadian views follow, that of Montrealers Joe King and Nicholas Rappaport, which denies any legitimacy to Quebec nationalist aspirations, and that of John Conway of Regina, which insists that English Canada can no longer deny that Quebec is a distinct society. Reg Whitaker brings the third national dimension into the discussion, that of the Native people. The danger, he says, is that once it becomes a matter of competing non-negotiable rights, the conflict could degenerate into a naked power struggle with terrifying consequences. Canadians should think twice before playing the Native question as a bargaining chip against Quebec. This section is completed by Garth Stevenson's treatment of another aspect of the debate, that of “multiculturalism.” Stevenson sees nothing particularly Canadian about multiculturalism, an idea invented by Pierre Trudeau mainly to undermine and destroy the older ideological symbol of “deux nations”. The next three articles set the Quebec question in a wider context. Jules-Pascal Venne describes the four waves of nation building that has now brought the number of independent states to 196. Would it be “natural” for Quebec to be number 197? Yes, but... answers Venne. Michael Keating elaborates on just this point. Keating compares Quebec to Catalonia and Scotland and Wales, each of which is engaged in a collective endeavour to articulate and live by new principles of social cohesion and collective decision-making. At the end of this twisting road, predicts Keating, lie new arrangements providing for more than provincial autonomy but less than classic statehood. And Zdenek Lukas describes recent developments in Slovakia which took the route of political independence when it split from Czechoslovakia in 1992. If Quebec takes that route, then we have much to learn from the experience of the Slovaks and Czechs. Finally, on a related theme, a Canadian living in Japan writing as Roger Ackroyd, asks us to learn to live with ambiguity in our relations with Asia. We don't need to endorse authoritarianism to acknowledge that Asian values which stress loyalty to family, clan and nation are very real and powerful. Indeed, coming to terms with these values — as we will have to do given the region's economic clout — may help us to learn to live with the ambiguities of the very real nationalism our own front yard. The author, like Keating and Lucas, brings a valuable outsider's perspective to the subject. The effect of budgetary constraints on policy making is very much part of Canada's political landscape. In his editorial, John Richards delivers some tough love on economics and policy choices to the NDP which is entering a leadership campaign as it faces possible obliteration from the Canadian political scene. And Bill Milne provides an account of the successes and failings of employment-oriented policies in New Brunswick which many regard as Canada's social policy laboratory. In the feature article, Henry Milner looks South, down the electronic highway, at what may lie in store for us in the event that budgetary constraints spell the demise of public broadcasting in this country. The prospects are harrowing indeed. Finally, two articles return to a familiar Inroads theme: we go wrong policy-wise when we put on intellectual blinders — however good our intentions. Terry Heinrich draws a discomforting picture of the results of immunizing designated groups by punishing perpetrators of hurtful speech against them. And Robert Martin tells the story of Clara Brett Martin, the first woman to practice law in Canada, who went from feminist heroine to racist villain when her anti-Semitic letters came to light. This, says Martin, is what happens when historians try to create heroes. In light of Heinrich's argument, we might conclude that Clara Brett Martin's portrait might still be hanging in the law schools of the land if only she had targeted a non-designated group, like white males. |
 |
 Return to Contents To see if copies of this issue are available, go to the Back Issue page |
