Where are the federalists?

Has being a federalist become a source of shame in French-language media?

(Texte français disponible ici.)

If there were a referendum tomorrow, two thirds of Quebecers would vote “No.” An alien might conclude the opposite by looking at the media landscape in La Belle Province.

When you open the newspaper looking for strong opinions on the possibility of Quebec becoming a country, what do you find?

Quebecor, which controls a significant portion of Quebec’s print media, is on a mission. Officially, Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec have no official editorial stance. In practice, their most prominent opinion columns are overwhelmingly written by sovereigntists—sometimes crossing the line into unabashed propaganda (yes, Mathieu, I’m talking about you).

At Le Devoir, where columnists still accept the fact-checking process, the pattern is equally clear, both in the editorial board’s positions and in those of its leading columnists. While it doesn’t have the same impact on the general public as Quebecor’s newspapers, Le Devoir retains its status as Quebec’s leading intellectual newspaper. When Pierre-Karl Péladeau—Quebecor’s main shareholder—writes an opinion piece, it’s usually in Le Devoir.

In a bygone era, La Presse took a staunchly federalist stance. Although the pages of the “Débats” section were open to all ideas—and I can attest to this, having edited them for two years—its own editorial writers (Pratte, Dubuc, Gagnon) promoted federalism, which was also the position of the newspaper’s owner at the time.

Today, only chief editorial writer Stéphanie Grammond still carries the federalist torch. The rest of La Presse’s opinion writers are now columnists who rarely weigh in on Quebec’s national question. This is not unrelated to the structural change at La Presse, which became a nonprofit organization in 2018. And it’s no secret that the editorial line wasn’t particularly popular within the newsroom.

La Presse’s satellite newspapers during the Gesca era also abandoned their federalist stance when their corporate structure changed: Le Soleil (Québec City), Le Droit (Ottawa-Gatineau), Le Nouvelliste (Trois-Rivières), La Tribune (Sherbrooke), Le Quotidien (Saguenay), and La Voix de l’Est (Granby). Today, their columnists rarely, if ever, weigh in on the national question.

The Gazette remains staunchly federalist but has virtually no presence among francophones.

On TV and radio, the imbalance is much less pronounced, although Quebecor has been active in recent years with its station QUB, which leans in the same direction as the Empire’s newspapers.

All this to say that if we tried to form two hockey teams out of these politicized columnists, there wouldn’t be enough red jerseys, and the blue team would trounce the red one.

It’s still remarkable that, on the one hand, there’s a whole army promoting sovereignty—which is supported by a third of Quebecers—while the case for federalism, which enjoys clear majority support, is either downplayed or rarely made at all.

Yet, unless we consider all Quebec federalists to be idiots, traitors, or colonized people incapable of thinking for themselves, there is no shortage of arguments in favour of Quebec remaining part of Canada. That is, one can acknowledge that these arguments exist without necessarily agreeing with them.

On platforms like X, Facebook, Bluesky, and even LinkedIn, there’s heated debate on both sides of the national question. Why is the federalist viewpoint almost never championed by opinion leaders in our media?

Are federalist commentators embarrassed to say so?

I’ve worked in several newsrooms. In the course of daily discussions among colleagues, I haven’t seen many who openly favoured remaining in the federation or expressed a burning desire to write on the subject—if only to ensure that the other side of the debate is also represented. (Except in the editorial section of La Presse.)

Support for sovereignty is generally more emotional—and perhaps seen as nobler. By contrast, wanting to remain part of Canada is perceived as a position that is, above all, rational and pragmatic. And, let’s face it, a bit dull.

It’s a bit of a caricature and an oversimplification, but it’s not entirely wrong. On one side: the Conquest, survival, emancipation, and the promise of ultimate fulfillment. On the other: finding our place within a system that was imposed on us, incremental progress punctuated by recurring frustrations, financial responsibility, comfort, and the security of the status quo.

On one side, a somewhat perilous passion; on the other, a marriage of convenience.

The key figures, too. On one side, Lévesque, Parizeau, Bouchard. On the other, Trudeau (Sr.), Chrétien, Charest.

Most Quebecers would rather have a beer with the sovereigntist trio, regardless of their allegiances. (Met Jacques Parizeau once. What a character!)

And the more recent episodes. Let’s forget La Conquête and start with the 20th century: conscription, conscription again, the War Measures Act, the Night of the Long Knives, Meech, Charlottetown, the sponsorship scandal, the Clarity Act.

Let’s just say that the symbolic narrative doesn’t paint federalism in a particularly favourable light.

+++++++

Over time, we’ve come to forget that being a federalist doesn’t necessarily mean thinking everything that comes out of Ottawa is great. It simply means preferring that Quebec remain part of Canada, with all its imperfections and the very slow process of continuous improvement that’s still underway.

It means acknowledging the reality of the Conquest. But it also means being able to recall that it took place nearly three centuries ago.

It means acknowledging that another regime was imposed on our ancestors. But it also means being able to recall that this regime eventually recognized their language, their religion, and their rights. (And—which is no small detail—that New France was not uninhabited when the first settlers arrived.)

It means acknowledging that a colonial regime cruelly repressed the Patriotes, who sought a republic based on equality for all. But it also means being able to recall that these Patriotes—mostly French Canadians—included English, Irish, and Scottish people, whose descendants still live among us today.

It also means recalling that some of these former Patriotes went on to help establish a responsible government and lay the foundations of modern Canada.

It means acknowledging the excesses—even the violence—of that fledgling state. But it also means being able to recall that when we judge democracies from another era by today’s standards, nearly all of them fall short, even those we admire today.

It means acknowledging that the work of preserving a common language will never be complete. But it also means being able to recall the real gains that endure: the immense success of integrating our immigrants over the past 50 years; the fact that Quebec’s anglophones are more likely than their counterparts elsewhere in Canada to speak French; and that they send their children en masse to French immersion schools—and even to schools where French is the sole language of instruction.

It means acknowledging the many constitutional frustrations. But it also means being able to point out that they have ultimately led to numerous political advances: Quebec’s increased control over immigration; its recognition as a distinct society, and later as a nation; and the effective right to opt out of federal programs with financial compensation. Not to mention Quebec’s immense influence on federal governance, where it has played an outsized role for the past 60 years.

It means acknowledging the viability of an independent Quebec. But it also means being able to point out that it is even more viable and prosperous within the federal system.

Finally, it means acknowledging the democratic legitimacy of the sovereignty movement. But it also means being able to state, without any hesitation and with conviction, that it is just as legitimate and democratic to want to remain within the Canadian federation. And that this desire, expressed continuously and consistently by a clear majority of Quebecers, must also be recognized, affirmed, and supported.

And that doesn’t necessarily mean you have a maple leaf tattooed on your heart. (Or anywhere else.)

+++++++

For the first time in 30 years, the Parti Québécois is promising to hold a referendum during its first term if elected—and it has a good chance of being elected.

Above all, this is the first time we’re entering what could effectively be a pre-referendum election campaign with a “Yes” media camp—but no “No” camp.

Will we see Quebecor’s media outlets and Le Devoir on a mission, with almost no one to present the other side of the story? Or will we instead witness a sort of awakening among non-aligned media outlets, leading to coverage that more accurately reflects Quebecers’ views?

Without resorting to propaganda, can we at least present the other side of the independence debate, if only to remind people why two thirds of Quebecers have reached the opposite conclusion?

It’s a matter of balance. From the perspective of journalistic fairness, it’s also a matter of responsibility. Because if those who can do it don’t, who will?

Perhaps our newspapers need some new blood. Or at least a little more red mixed in with all that blue.

-30-

I’m diving back into my vacation, and I’ll be back for the election campaign. A huge thank you to everyone who supports this publication and what I’m trying to do here.

My name is Patrick Déry. I’m a French-speaking Québécois writing for a living, and trying something different here. If you enjoyed reading this text, you can support me by buying me a coffee. You can also subscribe to this media (free or paid, your choice).

Comments, shares, and “likes” are always appreciated.