Life on the Left

Wednesday, May 17, 2017

Québec solidaire: a global justice party

Here is my translation of the original draft resolution on international policy proposed for debate and adoption at the Québec solidaire congress in Montréal May 19-22. It includes, in addition to the numbered sections that are up for adoption as amended by congress delegates, the introductory comments for each topic that were provided by the party's policy committee.

As I explained in my previous post, proposed amendments from local and national associations and bodies of the party were edited by a synthesis committee for debate at the congress. “For the most part the synthesis document,which also publishes each of the suggested amendments with an explanation of why it proposes adoption or rejection, does not fundamentally alter the draft proposals.”

– Richard Fidler

* * *

Québec solidaire: a global justice party

The globalization of markets promotes a world of exploitation, competition and domination. In contrast, global justice (altermondialisme) demands “another possible world”: a world of inclusion, cooperation and solidarity. Québec solidaire has been a global justice advocate since it was founded. Its politics are based on the following principles:

- against imperialism and for a genuine international solidarity;

- for preventing violence and building peace; and

- for fair and equitable international trade.

Where does the global justice movement originate?

Since the 19^th century, an internationalist tradition has sought to found solidarity among peoples.

In the 1990s, the movement against globalization targeted the symbols of a new world order: multinational or transnational enterprises, free-trade agreements and international financial or commercial institutions.

The current “world order” is the product of years of liberalization of the economy, privatization of public services, deregulation of financial markets, reduction of tariff barriers, etc. The anti-globalization movement has fought against this trend during summits in which chiefs of state signed agreements outside the purview of democratically elected parliaments.

The “anti” was then succeeded by the “other” as a way of proposing a democratic and solidaristic alternative to destructive neoliberal globalization.

The global justice movement established a World Social Forum (WSF) in response to the Davos Economic Forum, which each year brings together the global economic elites. The WSF has been an opportunity for many social movements — ecologist, antiwar, indigenous rights, women’s rights, etc. activists — to exchange ideas and strengthen their mutual relations.

Where are we now?

Since 2001, the social forums (world, regional or thematic) have spread throughout the globe. They have also inspired international encounters such as the World Peoples Conference on Climate Change, the Rio+20 People’s Summit, and the Sarajevo Peace Event.

The World March of Women has organized many global events that have led, inter alia, to the adoption of the Women’s Global Charter for Humanity in 2005 [2004], and important demands in 2010 and 2015.

The economic crisis of 2007-2008 led the global justice movement to criticize more generally the capitalist economy and the fact that the interests of finance capital override those of states. This critique has inspired the demonstrations of the indigné(es), the “Occupy” movement, the Arab Spring uprisings, and more generally the struggle against austerity.

Like Québec solidaire, political parties adhering to the global justice movement exist just about everywhere in the world. The environmental, social, economic, political and cultural crisis that we are experiencing originates in the contradictions of the present world system. This crisis is experienced locally, nationally and globally. Altermondialisme, global justice, is therefore central to a new projet de société, an agenda for social change.

Only a state that is fully sovereign would have all the necessary tools for such an orientation with the power to participate fully in the development of a new international policy. Nevertheless, a provincial government led by QS could

- establish tools and policies to promote peace and fight imperialism and militarism;

- reorient priorities for cooperation toward popular movements and progressive governments fighting for social justice and peace;

- join its voice to those of the peoples.

4.1 Against imperialism and for real international solidarity

Major powers have dominated the world for centuries. Peoples have been subdued, exploited, assaulted. Today, this old colonialism has been replaced by what is called imperialism. The forms are different, but economic, political and cultural domination is still imposed and the right of peoples to self-determination is still violated.

This imperialism, which is preparing the ground for an unprecedented human and environmental catastrophe, serves the interests of the big monopolies and transnational enterprises. It results from the logic of the capitalist system: the search for maximum profit, the need to accumulate in order to accumulate. Rivalry between transnational enterprises in the appropriation of markets and natural resources leads to rivalry between states.

The flames of conflicts are fanned increasingly as the United State and its rivals seek to consolidate their influence. Furthermore, US maneuvers are aimed at destabilizing progressive governments in Latin America and elsewhere. Imperialist interventions are often presented as “humanitarian operations.” Acts of violence by some states are denounced in order to justify the forceful overthrow of their governments. Yet the imperialist powers shut their eyes to the rights violations committed by their allies.

Imperialism is economic and geopolitical, but it is also cultural: imposing its culture, its educational system, its music, its way of thinking and above all of consumption (in order to multiply business opportunities) — in short, its vision of the world.

Québec solidaire defends a world founded on solidarity and liberation of peoples, on the self-determination of nations, equality between men and women, environmental protection and democratization of international institutions. QS works therefore for social justice and peace, against colonialism, occupations, and militarism. It opposes all imperialist domination.

Within this perspective,

- it prioritizes the establishment of collaboration with progressive parties and social movements worldwide that share this vision;

- international assistance should be conceived in solidarity so as to respond to peoples’ needs and not the economic imperatives of Canada or private interests.

Proposition 4.1.1

Fight against global exploitation, poverty and exclusion

Québec solidaire will establish relations of collaboration with parties and social movements fighting in the various regions of the world for social justice, a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and for the economic and social rights of the broad majority. To fight exploitation, poverty inequalities and exclusion throughout the world, a QS government:

a) will strengthen its relations of cooperation to express its solidarity with peoples struggling for social justice and protection of their living environment against predator and neocolonial logic

i. by participating in the efforts of peoples, progressive political parties and governments to establish structures of cooperation and solidarity based on a fair sharing of resources. with a view to contributing to a new international economic order,

ii. by participating actively in the huge international movement for climate justice, for example by supporting the establishment of an International Climate and Environmental Justice Tribunal, as discussed in 2010 at the Cochabamba conference in Bolivia,

iii. by supporting initiatives which at the global level will help reduce the ecological footprint of economic activities;

b) along with progressive social movements and political parties will support and apply the following principles striving for social transformation in accordance with the UN guidelines on extreme poverty and human rights:

i. securing respect for the rights of everyone, regardless of his or her origin or destination, including the right of appeal and rectification of their rights where they are violated,

ii. integrating in law and practice the principle of transparency and responsibility of all public and private actors that are involved,

iii. supporting the poorest and most excluded persons and groups of persons to help them participate in the decisions that are made and in the search for and implementation of solutions that affect them;

c) will work for recognition of the human rights and the right to mobility of migrants and refugees, particularly for climate reasons, the all-too-many victims of discriminatory and violent policies and practices throughout the world, by

i. applying the principles adopted in the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, which came into force in 2003, and if possible ratifying and applying this convention;

ii. participating in the drafting of an international convention on the rights of migrants inspired by the Charte mondiale des migrants proclaimed at Gorée (Sénégal) in 2011.

Proposition 4.1.2

Quebec’s role in the overhaul of the United Nations

With respect to Quebec’s place in the world, a QS government

a) pursuant to the UN Charter, will reaffirm the sovereignty of states, participate in the transformation of international institutions and support a profound overhaul of the UN to make it truly democratic, in particular by advocating abolition of the right of veto of the five major powers and ensuring that representation and decision-making powers are not based on the assets of the member countries;

b) under the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted at the September 2015 session to implement the Millennium Development Goals, and the second United Nations Decade for Eradication of Poverty (2008-2017), will pressure the UN to ensure that this program

(i) is focused on the rights of peoples and persons;

(ii) tends to eliminate extreme poverty by 2030 through the establishment of a social protection platform for everyone;

(iii) is oriented fairly and responsibly to ensuring that no one is exploited, excluded or the victim of discrimination, and that all inequalities are fought;

(iv) encourage international funding of programs promoting access of all children to free primary and secondary education;

(v) encourage internatinoal funding of programs promoting access to health services and to universal and free social services;

a. will adhere to the International Criminal Court;

b. will pressure the United Nations to establish a permanent emergency peace servic and commit to contributing financial and human resources to it.

Proposition 4.1.3

Mutual aid and international solidarity

To support mutual assistance and international solidarity, a QS government

a) will support such actions aimed at long term development as well as social movements and NGOs working to that effect; for this purpose, it will devote an amount equivalent to at least 0.7% of GDP to them in accordance with the recognized international guidelines and will oversee compliance with the following principles:

i. that international solidarity actions receiving state financial support involve the civil society of the host country and are consistent with international conventions,

ii. that priority is given to countries with progressive governments working in unison with their peoples,

iii. that solidarity actions give priority to the rights, needs and aspirations of the most deprived and most marginalized populations,

iv. that funding is dedicated to long-term actions, in order to increase the chances for success,

v. that solidarity actions preserve the health, diversity and capacity for adaptation of the natural environment,

vi. that higher education is provided free of charge in Quebec for students from poor countries in accordance with terms to be defined,

vii. that international solidarity actions are not aimed at profiting Quebec companies and accordingly are not used as a bargaining chip with the host country,

viii. that the funded activities fall within the perspective that the recipient countries or regions will have no further need for assistance in the medium or long term;

a) will orient humanitarian assistance (emergency aid) so such actions respond to the needs of the recipient populations, and in so doing:

i. will support actions aimed at providing emergency help to populations whose fundamental needs are no longer satisfied because of natural catastrophes, political and ecological crises, or other causes,

ii. will monitor to ensure that projects are deployed in collaboration with the community, governmental and international organizations. Where the authorities are part of the population’s problems, the guideline for assistance deployment will remain first and foremost the interest of the beneficiary populations.

4.2 Preventing violence and building peace

Are we heading toward a third world war? The global context dangerously resembles the one that preceded the Second World War, with

- an increase in socio-economic inequalities even within the relatively well-off countries (1% vs. 99%);

- new hotbeds of confrontation, especially in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa;

- unending internal conflicts within some countries linked for example to the drug trade or the consequences of civil wars.

We might add the growing militarization, the rearmament of countries like Japan and the rising nuclear threat.

Until recently, the word “war” was understood to mean an officially declared confrontation between two or more states. Nowadays, conflicts instead tend to take the form of civil wars, latent confrontations, regional tensions or intervention of the major powers far from their frontiers. There are said to be at present 29 ongoing conflicts, most of them in the southern hemisphere [the global South].

Most of these conflicts are orchestrated by the West. They are an integral part of capitalist globalization and neocolonialism, an economic model based on

- extractivism, that is, the appropriation of natural resources by multinationals, mainly western ones. 75% of mining companies have their headquarters in Canada, a legal and tax paradise for this industry;

- the production of military equipment. Quebec is a participant, in particular in the aeronautics and communications industries, and through the research contracts awarded to our universities;

- the arms trade, in which five permanent member states of the UN Security Council are especially involved although they are charged with maintaining international peace and security. Canada likewise has its share.

For several years now the US government has been reinforcing militarization in the context of the “war on terrorism.” Under the Conservatives, Canada increased its military spending while reducing the funds allocated to environmental protection, anti-poverty and defense of the rights of the most vulnerable populations. Canada has still not managed to spend 0.7% of its GDP on international assistance!

In addition to the economic consequences this entails, Canada’s active engagement in various conflicts and the open confrontation with the Islamic State provokes other repercussions:

- the first terrorist-inspired attacks on our soil;

- legislation which, under the pretext of security, restricts human rights and freedom of expression;

- the identitarian radicalization and instrumentalization of religion not only in the Middle East but also in the West and Asia;

- the security industry, growing rapidly and increasingly under the control of private firms that are unaccountable.

Proposition 4.2.1

Culture of peace and participation in antiwar institutions

Québec solidaire will work to introduce and develop a culture of peace. To this effect, it will support the peace movement and education for conflict prevention and resolution with the help of the education system including popular education and public institutions.

In the context of an independent Quebec, a QS government

a) will appoint a Ministry of Peace and International Solidarity;

b) will participate in international bodies supporting peace initiatives (e.g. United Nations Peacebuilding Commission);

c) will exclude membership in NATO[1] and NORAD[2];

d) will adhere to international treaties contributing to conflict risk reduction, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines, and the recent Arms Trade Treaty, and will fight for their implementation;

e) will also adhere to the legal instruments and initiatives to eliminate the use of child soldiers and to contribute to their social reintegration; and

f) will ban the production of and trade in military equipment.

Proposition 4.2.2

A country without an army

A Quebec without an army will provide itself with an intervention corps trained to assist populations nationally and internationally in catastrophes resulting from natural or human causes. Service in this corps will be for one year, and will be mandatory and universal. It may be replaced by equivalent community service under democratic control by the civilian authorities.

In addition:

Option A

Option B

Instead of an army, Quebec will create:

a) a professional (un-armed) peace corps trained in conflict and crises prevention and in national reconstruction and reconciliation, including interventions that are targeted toward women (the major victims of conflicts, and who often bear the burden of social reconstruction).

b) a civil defense corps specially trained in non-violent resistence techniques and provided with advanced technologies to ensure surveillance of borderse and protection of strategic infrastructures.

Instead of an army, Quebec will create an armed defense corps:

a) whose sole functions will be defense of our borders,

b) which cannot serve outside the country’s borders.

Proposition 4.2.3

Impact of conflicts on women and role of women in antiwar action

In regard to the major impact of conflicts on women’s security and on their role in society, a QS government

a) will denounce militarization that for women entails increased violence, rape, trafficking and sexual exploitation;

b) will oppose military propaganda that is based on patriarchal, hierarchical and anti-democratic values;

c) will demand the participation of civil society and the women’s movement in negotiations aimed at settling conflicts;

d) will aim to promote a larger role for women in the professional peace corps and/or armed defense corps.

4.3 For fair and solidarity-based international trade

Since the late 1980s Canada has signed numerous free-trade agreements, including NAFTA (Canada, USA, Mexico) and the free-trade agreement with the European Union, currently being negotiated, which is based on the same neoliberal basis as NAFTA.

These agreements are not primarily concerned with trade in goods. They are aimed at transforming public services and even culture into commodities just like wheat. They are intended to ensure that laws and regulations in force in our country are no longer a constraint for foreign investment. These agreements, negotiated in the greatest secrecy, therefore weaken the sovereignty of states.

Québec solidaire has previously stated in its electoral undertakings that such accords must cease. International trade must be established on the basis of reciprocity between nation states that ought to protect their internal trade in response to the needs of their people. The element that we add here (4.3.1a) is the preservation of the sovereignty of states that are bound by an agreement.

Three other points should pertain to international agreements:

- the concerted struggle against tax avoidance;

- the obligation for multinational or transnational companies to assume everywhere liability for the consequences of their activities on society and the environment;

- the cancellation of the public debt of poor and dominated countries.

Proposition 4.3.1

Fair and solidarity-based international trade

To promote fair and solidarity-based trade, a QS government:

a) will propose to replace the existing agreements by new trade agreements based on reciprocal respect that will preserve the sovereignty of the signatory states;

b) will rely on its policy of international solidarity aimed at actively supporting movements and governments that share its orientations toward democracy and social justice;

c) will take the necessary steps to exercise effective control over investment to ensure that it benefits the development of the domestic economy;

d) will combat tax avoidance and tax evasion together with other countries, in particular by participating in the BEPS project.[3]

e) will support the cancellation of the public debt of the poor and dominated countries, and will denounce the use of the public debt as a pretext to impose unjust and anti-social policies on the world’s peoples.

Proposition 4.3.2

For Quebec corporate responsibility abroad

A QS government will supervise the activities of Quebec companies abroad, and in particular:

a) establish a commission to supervise the activities abroad of Quebec companies in such matters as occupational health and safety and environmental protection. This commission will work in partnership with Quebec and foreign agencies engaged in international development and the defense of human rights. Its work will draw strongly on the international law governing human rights and the environment.

b) will assign this body the following mission:

i. to impose mandatory public dissemination of the social and environmental record of the companies concerned. This balance sheet will follow recognized international standards and will be audited by an independent certified agency.

ii. to recommend prosecution of companies that are suspected of infringing Quebec laws.

iii. to impose sanctions against companies that are found guilty.

a) will require that organizations in the economic sector (cooperatives, firms, etc.) account for all the costs associated with the extraction, production, transformation, distribution and marketing of products and services, in particular in connection with the international exchanges in which these organizations are involved.

[1] North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

[2] North American Aerospace Defense Command.

[3] Base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) refers to tax avoidance strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules to artificially shift profits to low or no-tax locations. Under the inclusive framework, over 100 countries and jurisdictions are collaborating to implement the BEPS measures and tackle BEPS.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Major decisions face Québec solidaire at its forthcoming congress

by Richard Fidler

Quebec’s broad party of the left, Québec solidaire (QS), will open a four-day congress on May 19 in Montréal — the 12^th congress in its 11-year history. The delegates face a challenging agenda. It includes the final stage of adoption of the party’s detailed program, a process begun eight years ago; discussion of possible alliances with other parties and some social movements including a proposed fusion with another pro-independence party, Option nationale; and renewal of the party’s top leadership.

Québec solidaire has attracted unusual media attention in recent months in the wake of the February announcement by Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, the best-known leader of Quebec’s massive student strike in 2012, that he had decided to join the party and become its candidate to replace QS leader Françoise David, who resigned in January, as the member of the National Assembly for the riding (constituency) of Gouin in Montréal. Nadeau-Dubois — often referred to as GND — also announced that he would campaign for election at this congress as the party’s male co-spokesperson. He is widely expected to win the Gouin by-election now scheduled for May 29.

GND’s announcement, accompanied by his sharp attack on Quebec’s “political class which for 30 years has betrayed Quebec,” prompted a flood of new membership applications; within a few days the QS membership grew by about 5,000, a 50% increase. An opinion poll at the time credited QS with 16% popular support, only 6 percentage points behind the Parti québécois in Montréal.[1]

These were welcome developments for the party, which has failed since its founding to elect more than three MNAs under Quebec’s undemocratic first-past-the-post electoral system. Also, although QS benefited from the militancy and popular support of the students’ struggle in 2012, gaining 4,000 new members for a time, it has suffered from a relative demobilization of social movement activists since then, although the ecology movement in opposition to climate change appears to be gaining in momentum.

Program Debate

The program debate covers such topics as the party’s position on justice issues, including legal aid and access to the courts, prison reform, drugs, police and the right to demonstrate; urban and rural land reform including respect for indigenous lands, strengthened environmental controls, and direct popular democracy at the municipal level; and food and agriculture policy including the transition toward “eco-responsible agriculture.”

Of particular interest is adoption of a proposed international policy for Québec solidaire based on the principles of opposition to imperialism and solidarity with the exploited and oppressed around a global justice (altermondialiste) agenda. Here is my translation of the draft resolution, including the introductory explanations of each section by the program commission. The resolution has been debated for more than a year by the QS membership.

Adoption of an international program by Québec solidaire is long overdue. The delay is due in part to a persisting tendency of the party to present its program in a provincialist Quebec framework instead of making its support of Quebec independence the driving factor in its program definition. (This ambivalence is explained below in relation to the debate on the proposed Constituent Assembly.) An exception is the party’s consistent support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against the Israeli state’s oppression of the Palestinians, reaffirmed in last year’s congress.

Close to 30 local and national associations and bodies of the party submitted proposed amendments to the draft resolutions, which were then edited by a synthesis committee for debate at the congress. For the most part the synthesis document, which also publishes each of the suggested amendments with an explanation of why it proposes adoption or rejection, does not fundamentally alter the draft proposals.

The party plans to publish its program as a whole by September of this year. The program as adopted at previous congresses is available here (in French only).

Alliances: Is the PQ a progressive step forward?

The focus on programmatic definition — important as it is — has been eclipsed in recent months by a renewal of a recurring debate in Québec solidaire over proposals to ally electorally with other parties, and in particular whether the party should seek a possible alliance with the Parti québécois for the next general election, in 2018. Whenever this question was raised in previous congresses, the delegates rejected by large majorities proposals for such alliance made by prominent QS leaders, among them Françoise David and Amir Khadir.

At its National Council meeting in November 2016, QS voted to investigate possible convergences and alliances between the party and “some social and political movements that share the same inclusive vision”: notably Quebec independence, an end to austerity, equality between men and women, recognition of the diversity of Quebec’s population, support of First Nations and Inuit self-determination, an ecologist transition including an end to hydrocarbons development, and reform of the electoral system that would include representation of parties in the National Assembly in proportion to their respective share of the popular vote. For many Council members this list of criteria, consistent with the pursuit of broader links to the indigenous population and progressive social movements, would automatically exclude the Parti Québécois.

However, immediately after the meeting PQ leader Jean-François Lisée, a wily politician, welcomed the QS decision, declaring it opened the way for “concrete partnership” between QS and his party to beat the governing Liberals in 2018. He claimed to see “no reason for disagreement” over the alliance criteria listed by the QS council — despite all the evidence to the contrary that the PQ has amply provided over the years.

Questioned by Le Devoir, Andrés Fontecilla, the then QS spokesman, expressed some responsiveness to Lisée’s overture, saying he agreed that “the important thing is to beat [Quebec premier] Philippe Couillard with the support of a progressive alliance.” Fontecilla said that although the QS congress six months previously had said no formal alliance with the PQ was possible without a commitment by the PQ to undertake a pro-sovereignty campaign from the outset of its term in office, and although there were significant differences with the PQ on the process leading to independence — in particular, the QS insistence that its proposed Constituent Assembly be left to decide whether the “constitution” it drafted would be that of an independent state or simply that of a province within Canada — the QS Council’s proposal did not say anything about these particular impediments to an alliance.

Deep divisions over costs and benefits of electoral alliances

It was soon evident that the QS leadership was deeply divided on these issues. The result was the publication within the party (on its intranet, for members only) of three options (A, B and C) on political alliances, to be debated at the forthcoming congress — two options in fact, since the third basically proposed that a decision be postponed to the subsequent convention next November when the party is to draw up its platform for the 2018 election.

Option B, now publicly supported by a majority of the central leadership, advocates “for Québec solidaire to become the home for those who are fighting neoliberalism and the Liberal government” — an alliance that it maintains offers the possibility of negotiating an electoral agreement with the PQ, a party, it says, that for the electorate “remains a fundamentally social democratic party and that represents a valid alternative to the Liberals.” Failing such a “pact,” it says, means “rejecting any alliance with that party and developing alliances with social movements or other parties that are resolutely independentist and genuinely progressive.”

Alluding to the tendency for the electorate to vote “strategically,” that is, to vote for or against parties with a real possibility of forming the government, the supporters of Option B argue that the PQ will be the primary beneficiary of voters’ desire to oust the Liberals while QS, a party that is still very weak, will be caught in this polarization of the popular vote and threatened in 2018 with a setback to its still modest electoral gains.

The PQ, of course, is intent on neutralizing QS as a threat to its chances of victory in many ridings. Québec solidaire’s Option B supporters hope to leverage this concern by pressuring the PQ to desist from running in a few ridings deemed “winnable” by QS, thus maintaining or increasing QS representation in the National Assembly (and entitling QS to continued state funding under the election laws, enough to offset reduced revenue in ridings where it desists in favour of the PQ!). In return, QS would agree not to run candidates in ridings where a sizeable QS vote might jeopardize a PQ victory. A related objective is a commitment by the PQ to institute a system of proportional representation when in office — although the PQ has consistently rejected PR throughout its history, including the 18 years when it formed the government, and despite a promise to institute it.[2]

In fact, only a few ridings, all in Montréal, are considered to be “winnable” for QS, while in far more ridings throughout Quebec QS support is sufficient to thwart a PQ victory in close electoral races. And such a pact would be difficult to negotiate, partly because both QS and the PQ enjoy their greatest support in the same ridings, with QS in recent years eroding the PQ’s support among urban voters looking for a progressive alternative. Nor is there any certainty that substantial numbers of members of either party would be willing to vote for the other where the party they prefer is not on the ballot. The PQ’s primary electoral tactic in recent years has been to woo voters to its right, those who vote for the right-wing Coalition Avenir Québec, a party that includes former péquistes and Liberals and promotes the illusory hope of winning autonomy for Quebec within a revised federal regime. PQ supporters unwilling to vote for QS candidates would likely be more attracted to voting for the CAQ.

More importantly, as Option A supporters argue, the proposed pact would be devastating for the image of Québec solidaire as a progressive party that actually enjoys more popular support than it receives from a pragmatic electorate voting strategically. Successive opinion polling accords QS up to twice the popular support registered by the party in general elections. And Option B supporters acknowledge that such an agreement with the PQ could result in the demobilization and probable demoralization of many QS members, especially in ridings where they agree not to run.

So what, then, does Option B propose, specifically? It calls for the establishment of a broad and progressive social bloc, the electoral goal of which is an increase in the number of QS MNAs, the defeat of the Liberal government and the election of “a government that marks a rupture with the policies of neoliberal austerity, that favours a real ecological transition, that instigates a reform of the electoral system and allows the advance of an inclusive sovereigntist project.” QS would undertake negotiations with the PQ — which Option B incredibly presents as corresponding to those criteria — seeking an electoral pact in a limited number of ridings represented at present by the Liberals or by the CAQ, currently the third party represented in the National Assembly. However, Option B explicitly rules out the formation of a governmental coalition of the party with the PQ.

This is an incoherent package. It would embellish the Parti Québécois and, if such a pact were to be reached, seriously undermine Québec solidaire’s identity as an anti-neoliberal alternative, let alone a genuine anti-capitalist party. If implemented, Option B would impede any serious attempt by QS to expose the PQ’s record as a party of neoliberal austerity, retreat from independence, and tolerance of hydrocarbon eco-suicide. And Option B’s rhetoric about galvanizing a “social bloc” in support of this tactic simply plays to the opportunist inclinations of grassroots social activists who tend not to see the relation between their progressive objectives and the need for a government that can actually help further those objectives.

Option A, in contrast, argues in favour of building “a genuine united front against austerity, for energy transition and for independence.” The united front we favour in the months and years to come, say Option A supporters, must be differentiated from the nationalist bloc led by the Parti québécois. It must be countered by “a popular bloc based on the working and popular classes defending a program that is opposed to austerity and ‘free trade’ and in favour of an ecological transition based on a policy of public economic investment and a process of accession to independence through a radically democratic approach proceeding through the election of a Constituent Assembly and a referendum on its result, all within the first term” of a pro-sovereignty government.

Only a minority of Québécois today see the creation of an independent state as a necessary or feasible objective notwithstanding the widespread opposition to the capitalist austerity orchestrated by the federal government together with its provincial counterparts. Option A therefore proposes that Québec solidaire first launch “a campaign for Quebec independence that will link the national question with the issues posed by reform of our democratic institutions, energy and climate transition, the protection of public services and social programs and the fight against poverty and inequality on the basis of a feminist, inclusive and civic vision of the Quebec nation and in solidarity with the First Nations and their right to self-determination.”

The assumption here seems to be that this campaign “from below” could create sufficient popular pressure on the Constituent Assembly to ensure it decides in favour of independence without any direction from a QS government — although QS as a party pledges to fight for independence as the necessary conclusion of the Assembly’s deliberations.

Since Québec solidaire does not have an on-line forum to enable its membership to debate these options or other political issues, most of the pre-congress literary debate has been carried on in Presse-toi-à-gauche, which is generally sympathetic to Option A. In addition to the many contributions challenging the thinking behind Option B or defending Option A, some QS members have gone beyond the debate on electoral strategies to advance alternative strategies for building the party in the months and years to come. In a future article I will discuss these in light of the congress decisions.

Leadership contest, but with a twist

The debate on alliances is reflected in the contest for election of a male spokesperson. (QS MNA Manon Massé, who succeeded Françoise David as co-spokeswoman, is unopposed in her bid for re-election, and professes that she is hesitating between Options A and B.)

Jean-François Lessard supports Option B, Sylvain Lafrenière supports Option A while Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, by far the favoured candidate, says he thinks an electoral pact with the PQ is both possible and desirable but expresses the view as well that alliances with other independentist parties would be facilitated if QS would drop its resistance to mandating its proposed Constituent Assembly to draw up a constitution for an independent Quebec. He also says he is not opposed to postponing a decision on alliances to the next congress, in November, which suggests he is favourable to Option C, perhaps in the hope of meanwhile winning the party to his position on the Constituent Assembly.

At a round-table debate of the four candidates for co-spokespersons organized by Le Devoir on May 12, GND was attacked by Lessard as engaging in “extremely demagogic discourse” by questioning the long-standing QS position on the Constituent Assembly. The party’s debate over the process of accession to independence, Lessard said, had been closed at the previous congress, which once again voted to give carte blanche to the Assembly; the party, he recalled, refuses “to presume the outcome” of the Assembly’s debates.

GND was quick to respond: “You don’t make a constituent assembly to draft a constitution of a regional county municipality... We must be more clear, and it must be said: what we are proposing is a constituent assembly to make Quebec an independent state.”

According to Le Devoir, the other candidates, Lafrenière and Massé, expressed great reluctance to impose such a mandate on the constituent assembly. “Lafreniere in particular fears that Anglophones and racialized people [sic] would shun the proceedings of the constituent assembly if its conclusions were written in advance. ‘It’s an exercise in popular education that will motivate people, that’s why we have done this’.....”

The Québec solidaire program[3] says the Constituent Assembly is the institution through which “the Quebec people” will exercise their right to self-determination. This is referred to as “popular sovereignty, the power of the people to decide completely democratically their future and the rules governing their own life, including the fundamental rules like membership or not in a country, or the drafting of a constitution.” (Emphasis added)

And the party promises that “the Constituent Assembly will be elected by universal suffrage and will be composed of an equal number of women and men, with proportional representation of tendencies and the different socio-economic classes [milieux] present within Quebec society.” Although this formulation raises a number of questions — does “tendencies” mean parties?; does “proportional representation of ... the different socio-economic classes” mean that priority of representation will go to working people, the vast majority of the population? — the party promises that the Assembly will be fully “autonomous” in all of its decisions.

This text has so far been an article of faith for the party, and is not challenged by Options A or B.

Assembly of the Patriotes in 1837, campaigning for independence from British rule (Charles Alexander Smith)

Whatever the outcome of this leadership contest, it will be interesting to see how the winning candidate manages to balance the important divisions now apparent within the party — that may be deepened soon, as we see below — in his new role as a “spokesperson” for the party as a whole — a concept that assumes a high degree of consensus among the membership.

Toward fusion with Option nationale?

The QS leadership is also proposing that the convention approve a strategy of seeking closer relations with a small independentist party, Option nationale (ON), that was established a few years ago following a split from the PQ of several of its MNAs, one of whom, Jean-Martin Aussant, took the initiative of forming the new party. ON has no more than one thousand members and polled less than 1% in the last general election. It has no members in the National Assembly.

The QS leadership is aiming for a fusion with ON before year-end. The document motivating fusion claims both QS and ON

“have always been close both programmatically and organizationally. While many elements of our programs are similar (Pharma-Québec, free education, reform of the voting method, etc.), there are in particular two fundamental proposals that make our two parties sincere partners: our willingness to make Quebec independence a concrete reality, and the way in which to achieve this, through a Constituent Assembly.”

“Over the years,” the document says, “we have been in constant communication with ON, our spokespersons and the ON leadership meeting together at least once a year to discuss the political situation.” Moreover, each party has observed all the conventions of the other as guests.

The QS leadership sees fusion with ON as an application of its strategy, set out by the party’s National Council in November 2016, of seeking possibilities for convergences and alliances with other parties and social movements. “Option nationale’s contribution,” it says, “will reinvigorate very much our independentist profile and confirm the political strength of our option. It will consolidate our party as a pole for rallying progressives and independentists....”

While some QS members are hesitant about this proposal, many have hailed it. A fusion with ON would remove a rival to QS among the pro-independence parties. But there are indications that the QS leadership is over-optimistic about its possibility and implications.

For example, the fusion proposal seems to exaggerate the progressive nature of ON. In a 2013 internal report by QS members based on attendance at an ON convention, “fundamental differences” were noted between the parties on “the fight for social change or the place for women and feminist issues” as well as an indifference to the relation between independence and social justice issues. “To them, ‘independence is neither left nor right, but forward’.” That is still characteristic of the party today.

Contrary to the assertion in the QS-ON fusion proposal, there has never been agreement between the parties on the process of achieving Quebec independence. This is clear on ON’s web site, which features a couple of articles by political scientist Denis Monière, a member of the party, critiquing the QS position on — what else? — the Constituent Assembly, in particular the open-ended mandate QS proposes for it: to define Quebec’s constitutional status either as an independent state or a province of Canada. “This is a fundamental difference with Option nationale, whose procedure for accession to independence provides that the Constituent Assembly will be mandated to define the institutions of an independent Quebec,” he notes.

Moreover, Monière argues, the QS program as a whole is conceived

“as if Canada did not exist as a political decision-maker.... They have so internalized the juridical separation of powers imposed by the Canadian constitution[4] that they act as if what happens at Ottawa is irrelevant for Quebec.... The Québec solidaire discourse upholds illusions of autonomism by concentrating on the social justice issues that pertain essentially to provincial powers. This posture is no doubt useful in criticizing the other provincial parties but it is ineffective when it comes to the pedagogy of independence because it does not attack the Canadian system as a whole.”

This is a telling critique. How, for example, can much of the QS program be implemented through staying in Canada as a province when Ottawa maintains control over such crucial jurisdictions as banking and finance, foreign affairs, the military, trade and commerce, criminal law and the senior courts and judicial appointments, etc.?

Much more can be said on this matter, but here again we find Québec solidaire’s position on the Constituent Assembly and the process of constitutional change an easy target for Quebec critics for whom state independence is the only logical and feasible path toward national emancipation. Many charge that the open-ended mandate (province or state? — posing “democracy” in opposition to the determination of a strategic goal) confirms not so much a commitment to “popular sovereignty” (but not necessarily state sovereignty) as it testifies to the presence of many closet federalists within the party.

Finally, it is worth noting that despite the rapprochement being discussed between Québec solidaire and Option nationale, the latter is running a candidate, Vanessa Dion, against Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois in the May 29 Gouin by-election.

[1] Le Devoir, March 18, “Québec solidaire gruge des appuis au PQ.”

[2] See Paul Cliche, Pour réduire le déficit démocratique, Le scrutin proportionnel.

[3] See Un pays démocratique et pluriel, p. 6.

[4] More correctly, the reference here is to the distribution of powers.

Major decisions face Québec solidaire at its forthcoming congress

by Richard Fidler

Program Debate

The party plans to publish its program as a whole by September of this year. The program as adopted at previous congresses is available here (in French only).

Alliances: Is the PQ a progressive step forward?

Deep divisions over costs and benefits of electoral alliances

Leadership contest, but with a twist

This text has so far been an article of faith for the party, and is not challenged by Options A or B.

Assembly of the Patriotes in 1837, campaigning for independence from British rule (Charles Alexander Smith)

Toward fusion with Option nationale?

The QS leadership is aiming for a fusion with ON before year-end. The document motivating fusion claims both QS and ON

“have always been close both programmatically and organizationally. While many elements of our programs are similar (Pharma-Québec, free education, reform of the voting method, etc.), there are in particular two fundamental proposals that make our two parties sincere partners: our willingness to make Quebec independence a concrete reality, and the way in which to achieve this, through a Constituent Assembly.”

Moreover, Monière argues, the QS program as a whole is conceived

“as if Canada did not exist as a political decision-maker.... They have so internalized the juridical separation of powers imposed by the Canadian constitution[4] that they act as if what happens at Ottawa is irrelevant for Quebec.... The Québec solidaire discourse upholds illusions of autonomism by concentrating on the social justice issues that pertain essentially to provincial powers. This posture is no doubt useful in criticizing the other provincial parties but it is ineffective when it comes to the pedagogy of independence because it does not attack the Canadian system as a whole.”

[1] Le Devoir, March 18, “Québec solidaire gruge des appuis au PQ.”

[2] See Paul Cliche, Pour réduire le déficit démocratique, Le scrutin proportionnel.

[3] See Un pays démocratique et pluriel, p. 6.

[4] More correctly, the reference here is to the distribution of powers.

Friday, May 5, 2017

A Québécois view of Canada’s 150th

The following article by André Binette, a prominent constitutional lawyer in Quebec, was first published in L’Aut’journal. The translation and notes are mine. – Richard Fidler

Canada’s 150^th anniversary: Why celebrate colonial autonomy?

by André Binette

Each sovereign state can choose the date of its national holiday. Generally, this date recalls the accession to independence. The United States, for example, chose to emphasize each year their unilateral declaration of independence of July 4, 1776. They preferred this date to the date of the Treaty of Paris, 1783, which ended the revolutionary war they had won thanks to France’s decisive support. Their national holiday commemorates a founding act.

In France, where the origin of independence is lost in the mists of time, they remember the 14^th of July, the fall of the Bastille, as the passage from monarchy to the Republic, the founding act of modern France. Unlike some other countries, the United Kingdom celebrates the birth of its sovereign as its national holiday; it is celebrated on the second Saturday in June. In Canada, they celebrate “the Queen’s birthday” in late May. In Quebec, the Parti Québécois government of Bernard Landry transformed the Queen’s birthday into its opposite, the Patriots’ Day, after the Patriotes who sought to establish the independence of Lower Canada, Quebec’s ancestor.

So Canada celebrates two national holidays: the United Kingdom’s and the one called Canada Day, referring to “Confederation,” (which was a confederation in name only), on July 1.[1] Neither has any relation to its independence. Canada does not celebrate the date of its accession to independence, which legally occurred on December 11, 1931 through the adoption of a British law called the Statute of Westminster.[2] Why?

There is more than one reason for this. First, the date when Canada achieved independence is in reality uncertain. In its Patriation Reference in 1981,[3] the Supreme Court was unable to situate it precisely, which in itself is an anomaly. At most it indicated that it had occurred in events between 1919 and 1931. This effective sovereignty was allegedly won on the battlefields of the First World War, in particular at the battle of Vimy Ridge — one of uncertain military importance but of great importance in the construction of Canadian identity, and for which its 100^th anniversary has just been celebrated. This victory led to the separate signature to the Treaty of Versailles of His Majesty King George V on behalf of Canada, which conferred on Canada an international juridical personality, one of the fundamental attributes of sovereignty.

It should be noted that during the centennial ceremonies at Vimy on April 9 the Canadian prime minister stated: “It is here where Canada was born.” This statement teaches us two things. First, and this is an irony of history, Canada was born in France. Second, Canada did not exist in 1867. It was born, according to Mr. Trudeau, exactly a half-century later.

Indeed, it should be recalled that British troops were still occupying the Quebec Citadel in 1867. The Canadian armed forces did not yet exist. Canada had no international relations other than relations within the British Empire. There was no Canadian ambassador abroad, and Canada could sign no treaty because its international relations, including with the United States, were conducted in London. Canadian citizenship did not appear until 1947.

The only provision in the British North America Act, 1867 that had anything to do with international affairs was section 132, which granted the Parliament and Government of Canada “all Powers necessary or proper for performing the Obligations of Canada or of any Province thereof, as Part of the British Empire, towards Foreign Countries, arising under Treaties between the Empire and such Foreign Countries.”[4] Moreover, the same Act provided that all federal laws could be disallowed [overruled] by London. The 1867 Act failed to respect the principle of effectiveness of core state functions, a necessary condition of independence.

Why, then, do they want to celebrate 150 years of colonial autonomy? It can only be because in 1867 they thought they had found the final solution to an event that had occurred thirty years earlier and had been a political earthquake. This was, of course, the rebellion of the Patriotes of Lower Canada.[5] A parallel revolt occurred in Upper Canada, but it concerned only the distribution of powers among Anglophones, namely the British governor and the local élite. That was remedied by the advent of responsible government which turned power over to the elected representatives of the population. In Lower Canada, in contrast, responsible government aggravated the fundamental problem which was the co-existence of two nations — the more vigorous one, demographically, being the French-Canadian nation.

The Act of Union in 1840, which merged Upper and Lower Canada, had been designed to dilute the power of the Francophone majority of Lower Canada at a time when responsible government was becoming inevitable. However, the Act of Union was a failure since the political and national realities were obvious: in effect, there were two co-premiers and two attorneys general in United Canada; two parliamentary majorities were required if laws were to be adopted. The fait francophone continued to weigh heavily in the functioning of the Union, too heavily in the eyes of certain Anglophone politicians.

The solution was colonial federalism, that is, Quebec’s imprisonment in a federal framework in which it was to become increasingly a minority. This imprisonment, which was an attempt at more definitive appropriation and neutralization of Québécois identity, is the precondition to the existence of Canada. This existential condition found its logical follow-up in the negation of the Quebec nation in the constitutional renewal of 1982. Canada was built on the weakening of Quebec. On July 1^st each year the Canadian nation celebrates its domination over the Quebec nation. The choice of a founding act that is to be collectively celebrated is never innocent and is always revealing.

[1] July 1, 1867 was the date on which the British North America Act, an act of the British Parliament, came into force. It consolidated four colonies — Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec (formerly Lower Canada) and Ontario (formerly Upper Canada) — into the Dominion of Canada, lacking formal popular consent and hence not a true federation of sovereign powers.

[2] One could add that Canadian criminal law appeals to the British House of Lords were not abolished until 1933 and all other appeals in 1949.

[3] [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753.

[4] Capitalization in the original. The Constitution Act, 1982, like its predecessor the British North America Act, was first adopted by the British Parliament in an English version (the UK’s Canada Act) and has never been adopted in an official French version, notwithstanding section 55 which provides: “A French version of the portions of the Constitution of Canada referred to in the schedule shall be prepared by the Minister of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as possible....”

[5] In 1837-38 the Patriotes of Lower Canada waged an armed struggle against British rule that was ultimately defeated. The revolt followed British rejection of the 92 resolutions drafted by Louis-Joseph Papineau and other members of the Parti Patriote in 1834 calling for political reforms in the colony. They were largely incorporated in a Declaration of Independence of the Republic of Lower Canada drafted in 1838 by rebel leader Robert Nelson.