News

Quebec is no more a racist society than other jurisdictions in the Western world, but it faces problems integrating immigrants which it will need to tackle immediately, says a report on the reasonable accommodation of the province's minorities.

The report by sociologist Gérard Bouchard and philosopher Charles Taylor says there is no chaos in Quebec but rather a serious problem of perception. The academics insist that both the francophone and immigrant communities must come together in a moral contract where both have a responsibility in ensuring social harmony.

What would you like to know about reasonable accommodation? Do you have questions about any of the issues raised during the commission's hearings? What is the situation like outside Quebec? Has the so-called clash of cultures impacted your life in any way?

Jacob Levy, Tomlinson Professor of Political Theory in McGill University's Political Science department and a member of the school's Centre for Human Rights and Legal Pluralism, joined us online Thursday to take your questions.

Your questions and Dr. Levy's replies appear at the bottom of this page.

Dr. Levy's areas of research include multiculturalism and nationalism, federalism, the rights of indigenous peoples, constitutional theory and jurisprudence, and 17th-19th century political thought.

He is the author of The Multiculturalism of Fear (Oxford University Press 2000) and numerous articles and chapters. He is currently writing a book on the historical and contemporary tension between rationalist and pluralist liberalisms.

After earning his political science degree at Brown University, Dr. Levy received his MA and PhD in politics from Princeton University, and a master of laws from the University of Chicago Law School.

He has been a National Science Foundation graduate fellow and a Fulbright Scholar at the University College, University of New South Wales, Australia, and has received fellowships from the Social Philosophy and Policy Center, the Earhart Foundation, and the Mellon Foundation New Directions program.

He is Secretary-Treasurer of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy, and Early Modern and Enlightenment Editor for the Sage Encyclopedia of Political Theory.

Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements.

Brodie Fenlon, globeandmail.com: Thank you for joining us Dr. Levy on this very interesting day in Quebec. The 300-page report has been public now for only a few hours, so I certainly don't expect you to know it inside and out. But based on what you've heard and read so far, do you have any first impressions to share?

Jacob Levy: I've read most of the 99-page executive summary and the recommendations. I think the report is a very impressive, thoughtful document, very careful and judicious but also brave. The commissioners haven't backed off from saying: there is no grave threat to Quebec identity brought on by immigration or by religious minorities, there is no crisis here, and the perceptions of a crisis are the actual problem.

That bravery, unfortunately, also means that I don't expect the report to accomplish very much. The commissioners were given an impossible combination of tasks, and there was no way for them to dissolve away the genuine disagreements in Quebec society about immigration, religion, and culture. It's an admirable work, but it's a work that's pretty far from the majority opinions among Quebec voters, and so I don't expect to see very much result from it.

Mark Thornton from Toronto writes: Quebec is usually thought of as less hospitable to the policy of multiculturalism than, say, Ontario. Is this the case? Does the Bouchard-Taylor report answer Quebeckers' doubts about multiculturalism? Does the report suggest that Quebec, because of its francophone identity in a sea of anglophones, requires special measures? If so, are their recommendations adequate? If not, are they right?

Jacob Levy: Identity questions in Quebec are more sensitive than in other provinces, for two separate reasons. One is the language question. The other is the Quiet Revolution, and ongoing tensions between secular and Catholic Quebeckers about the place of religion in the public sphere.

"Multiculturalism" in particular is a dirty word in Quebec, because it's associated with Trudeau-era views that seemed to reduce French Quebec (and First Nations, too) to the status of just another cultural group like any recent immigrant group. So there's also a hostility to anything called multiculturalism, but that's about words, not policies.

The commission report basically sidesteps questions of language. It says, rightly, that French isn't endangered in Quebec anymore, that whatever happens with immigrant accommodation and religious accommodation is going to happen against the background of a French public language and public culture. But it also stresses, rightly, that questions of bilingualism and the status of the English minority in the province are quite distinct questions from those of immigrant communities and religious minorities. I think it accepts as a background assumption that French will receive its special status and special protection in Quebec.

Tommy Shanks from Canada writes: Canada has been a multicultural country ever since the Crown chose the Quebec Act and Indian Treaties over conquest and assimilation, and ever since Indians and French sided with the Crown in the War of 1812. Canada's message to newcomers since has been one of 'come, be yourself, lets work together to build this country'. So when in the last three centuries did this model of accommodation break down? How did such a learned commission determine that the ability of a public servant to offer 'public service' depends on whether they were wearing religious symbols? What difference does it make that the police officer that pulled me over was wearing a turban, or the doctor treating me is wearing traditional Indian clothing? Or whether I am getting voicemail in some government department cause someone is at prayer, as opposed to a line up at the local Timmy's?

Jacob Levy: Canada has been multicultural as a description, not as a policy, all that time. There have been eras of significant coercion against both francophones and First Nations; it's not as though there's been three continuous centuries of liberal reasonableness on the part of the Crown, Ottawa, or the anglophone majority. That's something that's acutely remembered in the "Je me souviens" province, and there's some real irritation among Quebecois that outsiders seem to have forgotten it.

The question of religious symbols while performing public services is a little trickier than you let on, and especially in Quebec which was a de facto Catholic theocracy a generation ago. Secular Quebeckers, the heirs of the Quiet Revolution, are very sensitive to having state officials look and act like representatives of the church. I don't actually agree with the commission's recommendation, and I think that modern secular Quebec could survive a police officer in a turban or wearing a cross. But I understand it, and it's not entirely unreasonable, in a place where the clerical collar and the judicial robe didn't seem distinct enough just a little while ago.

Dwight Tanner from Canada writes: While the federal government has pursued a policy of multiculturalism, is it possible that some provinces like Quebec do not wish to pursue multiculturalism? Because of Canada's great size, sparse population, and history, the country has often operated as a loose pluralism of somewhat disparate parts.

Jacob Levy: That's certainly right. Federalism means that different provinces will pursue different balances of policies that are responsive to different local conditions and histories. That's a real strength of federalism. It also brings the disadvantage that sometimes local majorities — say, the Quebecois — will act intolerantly or unjustly to local minorities. That's the price we pay; in a centralized state without federalism, the whole majority (say, anglophones) could act unjustly toward everyone.

But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't protest if the local majority's acting unjustly. People have rights. Members of religious minorities have a right of religious freedom. I think the balance struck in Quebec will inevitably be different from the balance struck elsewhere, but I also think that there are real dangers of violations of religious freedom. Not every province needs to adopt the full range of policies that get called "multiculturalism" in Ottawa, but every province should respect basic rights and freedoms.

Albin Forone from Canada writes: This topic interests me, as a Toronto resident who 'escapes' to Montreal or the Gatineau, and whose daughter is happily ensconced with a lifelong francophone of purebred Scottish (yes, indeed) ancestry in the lovely Gatineau. I've always felt comfortable and well treated as an anglophone visiting Quebec and I'm grateful for its foreign "je ne sais quoi" as compared with earnest Ontario. How much of the 'reasonable accommodation' problem is a question of legitimate cultural concern not to find oneself a stranger in one's place of birth, and how much is really a problem of nasty racial or ethnic bigotry? Thank you.

Jacob Levy: This is where it gets very hard. It's absolutely clear that francophone Quebecois have a long history of being afraid that they'll be made strangers in their own land. And during the era of anglophone dominance they were, or many of them were. That makes all questions of identity especially vexed here.

But, as the commission report says, Quebec culture is now strong not weak, and there are real dangers from continuing to believe that it's weak. A significant danger is that of lashing out at those who are genuinely weak, including First Nations (outside the commission's mandate), immigrant groups, and religious minorities.

What we heard at the public hearings last fall also included a significant component of sheer bigotry. Now, those views weren't representative. The public hearing process ended up selecting for those people who had axes to grind and extreme views. On the other hand, they seem to have been extreme expressions of views that were already there.

The Herouxville Norms that preceded the appointment of the commission are a good place to look for the mixture. Yes, they were motivated by a desire to be at home in one's own home; that's officially what they were all about. But they were mixed in with some extremely ugly bigotry and intolerance.

[On an earlier discussion about this report] Rain Couver from Canada writes: Just the fact that the Québécois are debating this point makes it a society that is 60 years behind the rest of Canada. Furthermore, it is very interesting that Quebec seeks to impose its ideals on others, however, one has to question those ideals. As a reformed Québécois, I find they are not a standard that I would consider enlightened or benevolent, but disdainful, nationalistic and intolerant. That is why many of us have escaped down the Trans Canada to live in refreshingly more open and tolerant communities that celebrate differences and welcome similarities. If Quebec is accepting immigrants, then it has to respect those differences rather than trying to attempt cultural missionary work. Ironic how the further towards secularism Quebec claims to be moving, the more it acts like the Catholic church. [Dr. Levy - Do you agree that the very debate itself suggests Quebec is behind the rest of Canada, or can Canada learn something from the way Quebec has handled this issue?]

Jacob Levy: I'll answer the moderator's question first. "Behind" is not the right way to think about this. I don't like dominant Quebec opinion on the rights of religious minorities, and I don't like the current balance between accommodation and uniformity. But these things are harder in Quebec, for the reasons I've already mentioned: the history of linguistic conflict and anglo dominance, and the Quiet Revolution and the previous history of Catholic dominance.

And conflicts between majorities and immigrants, or between majorities and religious minorities (not always the same thing), are everywhere in western democracies. It's a little more acute in Quebec, and the hearings made the underlying disputes a little more public than they sometimes are. But over and over again in western democracies, rural voters, religious voters, working-class voters, cultural-majority voters eventually get sick of pro-trade, pro-immigration, pro-accommodation of multiculturalism policies pursued by urban and professional and political elites. They then vote for a party that speaks for them, and the political elite goes into a shocked frenzy.

This happened last year in Quebec, but it's not unique to Quebec — and supporters of multiculturalism in the rest of Canada are badly fooling themselves if they think such a revolt can never happen there.

Don't get me wrong — I'm one of the urban multiculturalists. But what we've seen in the last two years in Quebec is just the stuff of democratic disagreement that happens throughout the multiethnic west.

A Canadian Girl from Toronto writes: Doesn't reasonable accommodation lead to ignorance? I mean, I can't tell you how many people ASSUME that I do certain things because I'm of Chinese descent. I have also been asked whether my given name is my 'real' name or not.

Jacob Levy: Not sure I follow. It's reasonable accommodation to, for example, change from forms that say "Christian name" and "last name" to forms that say "given name" and "family name." It was unfair to people who maintained the traditional Chinese order of names that they couldn't really respond to questions about what their name was, and was unfair to all non-Christians to have their given names referred to as "Christian" names. Now, any given community — immigrant, ethnic, religious — will have variation in how traditional, how acculturated, etc., it is. And it can be rude to assume that someone you're talking with is (your conception of) traditional. But it's also rude to assume that they're not. Manners in multicultural settings are tricky, but then, manners are tricky. They take effort. That's not a reason to give up on the attempt to accommodate those who actually are traditional, practising, etc.

Brodie Fenlon, globeandmail.com: Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Taylor point out that the public perception of culture clash is far different from the reality, and they castigate the media for their role in muddying that perception. What are your thoughts on the role of the media in this debate?

Jacob Levy: I have mixed views on this. The underlying disagreements are real ones. There's no question that sensationalism can inflame those disagreements, and I do think there was some sensationalism a year and a half ago or two years ago. But it's also easy to blame the media for things that aren't really their fault. After all, newspaper publishers respond to demand — they want to sell newspapers. If there's a large portion of the public that wants to buy newspapers with headlines blaring that some Muslim family somewhere wanted to eat a meal without pork, that's not the newspapers' fault — it's the fault of the audience.

Brodie Fenlon, globeandmail.com: Thank you again for joining us Dr. Levy. Any final thoughts? Where does Quebec go from here? As you've already said, you don't expect the report to accomplish very much. So what is the provincial government to do?

Jacob Levy: Thanks for having me.

What I expect is that the government will do the things that are relatively easy — rename cabinet ministries, increase funding for integration programs, increase funding for French education — and dodge hard things like guaranteeing rights of religious freedom for religious minorities. That's just the reality of the political climate right now. If the government tried to enact the whole list of recommendations, it would be handing the next election to the ADQ, in all likelihood. So it will try to muddle through.

But muddling through is what we usually do with our disagreements. We — we in Quebec, we in Canada, we in multiethnic democratic societies — have been living with these sorts of tensions and disagreements for a long time, and we'll continue to do so. This isn't the sort of thing that gets "solved" all at once.

Brodie Fenlon, globeandmail.com: Thanks again to Dr. Levy and to our readers for your questions. You can continue the discussion here through our comment function.