Mathieu Bock-Côté: “In Quebec, Mark Carney is Far From Being the Hero Europeans Adore”
Pour sauvegarder un article vous devez être connecté, vous pourrez ainsi les consulter sur tous vos appareils.
After suspending trade negotiations with Washington, the Canadian prime minister has been portrayed in Europe as a herald of anti-Trumpism. Yet in reality, he is far from a Gaullist figure, as Quebecers know all too well.
In search of a herald of anti-Trumpism, the French press had been enthusiastic about Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech in Davos in January, which called for the middle powers to unite to stand up to American imperial ambitions. A new wave of enthusiasm came in late August when he broke off trade negotiations with the United States, accusing it of seeking to turn Canada into a vassal state. What’s more, Carney sought to make it a solemn moment by accusing U.S. President Donald Trump of wanting to attack the French language and Quebec culture.
Trump, the barbarian, allegedly wants to crush the people of Quebec and their right to live in their own language. Canada would not tolerate the trampling of the identity of one of its founding components. It was even written somewhere that Carney was saving the honor of democracies. The Canadian prime minister is thus portrayed as a Gaullist figure.
It took only a few days for this beautiful narrative to be dismantled — by The New York Times, in particular, but not exclusively — without the French press taking note, as it was more attached to the legend of “the Great Carney” than to reality. It quickly became clear that Washington had at no point sought to overturn Quebec’s language laws — and that the concessions demanded regarding the availability of French-language content on streaming platforms had been accepted by Ottawa — that is, by Carney, contrary to what he claimed. The Washington vigorously contested Carney’s remarks, with Trump even going so far as to issue a declaration of love for Quebec and French Canadians, which, of course, no one is obliged to believe. In the Quebec press — which is otherwise very hostile toward Trump — one observation stood out, albeit with a touch of exasperation: Carney lied to the whole world. But why?
Carney’s statement can be explained in the context of Canadian domestic politics. The Quebec provincial elections will take place on October 5. The separatist Parti Québécois, after a long period in the political wilderness, is leading in the polls, and Ottawa is deeply concerned. Carney hoped to spark a “rally ’round the flag effect” that would benefit Quebec’s current premier, Christine Fréchette. Leader of the centrist Coalition Avenir Québec party, she heads a government that is worn out after eight years in power — drained, exhausted and officially in favor of autonomy, albeit a watered-down form of autonomy — opposed to independence, and now banking on an anti-Trump “flag effect” to revitalize itself.
This strategy could work, and Carney could then claim victory. Another element that fits into this logic: Like much of the Canadian elite, Carney is haunted by the “unfinished country” syndrome. Since World War II, Canada has used every external crisis to further its centralization. The tariff crisis serves the current Canadian government’s interests. Especially because Canada is, in many respects, an artificial country, riddled with objective contradictions, as evidenced by the rise of Alberta separatism.
But let’s return to the issue of the French language. Ottawa has cast itself as its defender, which is laughable. Ottawa has long pursued — and has accelerated over the past decade — an immigration policy that has led to the rapid anglicization of the Greater Montreal area. You only have to set foot there to confirm this. Similarly, Ottawa has never stopped challenging Quebec’s language laws in its courts — whether Bill 101 or Bill 96 — all while pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into promoting the English language in Quebec.
That is not to mention the anglicization of the federal civil service, where the French language now has only a residual status. Ottawa has always viewed the people of Quebec as an irreducible difference that it must dissolve to neutralize the possibility of independence. The idea is that the people of Quebec, with their French language and culture, should become the bilingual Canadian population of Quebec. Ottawa views the French language merely as a folkloric trinket of identity used to distinguish Canada from the United States — for, in fact, without the French language, Canada resembles just another U.S. state that is a little less wealthy, a little calmer.
Whatever one may think of the Canadian government, those who enthusiastically celebrated Carney’s statement at Davos without really knowing what they were saying unwittingly remind us that, all too often, the press parrots the propaganda of those in power without attempting to analyze it — as if it were better to celebrate a beautiful legend than to examine the cold, hard reality.
