“Debating Citizenship in Canada:
The Collide of Two Nation-Building Projects.”

Un texte publié dans le livre sous la direction de Pierre Boyer, Linda Cardiinal et David John Headon, From Subjects to Citizens: A hundred years of Citizenship in Australia and Canada, chapitre 4, pp. 263-286. Ottawa: Les Presses de l’Université d’Ottawa, 2004, 238 pp.

Introduction [263]

The New Offensive on Citizenship and Identity in Canada [265]

Turning Towards Citizenship in Québec [270]

Conclusion [281]

INTRODUCTION *

Debates about the meaning of citizenship have been fundamentally altered following the Forum national sur la citoyenneté et l'intégration held in Québec in September 2000. The focus of discussion is no longer mainly on the formal-legal definition of citizenship. In the debates on citizenship, there has been a shift away from outlining and defining the rights of citizenship towards a more substantive discussion on the symbolic meaning of citizenship. Central to this debate is the question of whether citizenship translates into a sense of belonging to a national community. The term citizenship is often understood in these discussions as referring to a sense of belonging to a national-political community. Yet, recognizing that this understanding of citizenship is not accepted by all, it is not surprising that the initiatives put forth by the Québec government were not well received by a variety of individuals. First, these initiatives were rejected by those individuals who do not approve of the Québec’s government political project. Second, they were also rejected by those who view initiatives by the Québec government in the realm of citizenship as intrusions in an area of federal responsibility, resulting in the undermining of the role of the federal government in the promotion of a Canadian citizenship.

[264]

The concepts of national identity and citizenship pushes us to simultaneously reflect upon what unites those who share a territorial and political space, the criteria of inclusion and exclusion in citizenship, and the social and political power relations that lead to the construction of the symbolic borders of citizenship [1]. The multiple identities that exist in the nation-state develop as much in reference to an identity group defined by language, ethnicity, nation, religion, culture, etc, as through the co-existence of these groups within a same political community. According to Gamberale, a national or ethnic identity precedes any form of political association. A national identity refers to a sense of belonging to a particular community. It is defined through temporal and spatial representations from nationals. These representations can be political, though not necessarily. In contrast, citizenship is the result of a political project that is based upon a social contract defined by a set of rights [2]. Political institutions serve as mechanisms that allow the participation (or non-participation) of the various individuals who find themselves within the political boundaries governed by the rules of citizenship. These institutions serve to determine the space for public deliberations as well as the conditions and mechanisms through which these public debates become possible [3].

Necessarily, this political space does not exist in a vacuum. The nation does call upon the political without being limited to this realm, while citizenship remains strictly political in nature. This brings forth the issue of how the concepts of national identity and citizenship coexist. How can various national identities coexist in a political space that contains more than one nation? How is the nation and nationalism defined when more than one nation is found in a given political space? Do these definitions change over time? In a multinational political community, what becomes of minority groups who are not or do not want to be considered nations? These are the issues that the national and political identities in the Canadian context are faced with.

[265]

The relationship between Québec and the rest of Canada entered a new era in the 1990s. Especially following the 1995 Québec referendum, citizenship became the privileged political and symbolic battleground where the concepts of what constitutes a nation, who are its members, and what are its attributes have been highly debated. The Canadian government worked towards redefining the concept of national belonging by revising its multiculturalism policy, its immigration and refugee legislation, and the Canadian citizenship law, and through the promotion of Canadian symbols, such as the flag. At the same time, the Québec government made significant changes to its strategy of integration and interculturalism with the transformation in 1996 of the ministère des Communautés Culturelles et de l'Immigration du Québec into the ministère des Relations avec les citoyens et de l'Immigration. This change in the structure of government is significant for it reflects a policy shift that wants to encourage every Québec citizen, those born in Québec as well as those who have immigrated to Québec, to develop a sense of belonging to the peuple québécois. The peuple québécois is presented here as a civic identity that should be endorsed as a pillar of any democratic society.

This paper addresses two questions : How are the federal and Québec policies on citizenship set forth ? And, how is citizenship debated in Canada and in Québec ? After outlining the initiatives undertaken by both the federal and Québec governments in terms of citizenship, we will explore how the debates on this question have come about. Our main focus will be on the Forum national sur la citoyenneté et l'intégration.

As the debates on citizenship in Canada substantiate, despite the fact that in theory it is possible to disassociate citizenship and national identity, in the political realm, the two concepts are ultimately intertwined. Thus, both Canada and Québec attempt to present a civic understanding of their national identy. However, neither can completely avoid the context in which the "civic" identity comes into being. Moreover, when examining issues of citizenship in Canada and Québec, we cannot overlook the fact that the Canadian and Québec policies on the integration of newcomers are in contradiction with each other.

The New Offensive on Citizenship
and Identity in Canada

In terms of citizenship, Canada is pursuing an ideology of shared values that emphasizes the following as its main points: responsible citizenship, a sense of belonging to Canadian society and state, endorsement of Canadian cultural codes and values, and the promotion of national unity. These ideas are conveyed in numerous texts put forth by the ministries of Canadian Heritage, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and by various committees that have been concerned with the renewal of the Constitution or the renewal of the Canadian immigration and citizenship laws [4].

[266]

This renewed interest on the question of Canadian citizenship is inscribed in an effort to redefine the boundaries of the political space in which the members of the Canadian political community must evolve. This came about in the 1990s, a period during which Canada was threatened by fragmentation and polarization that led to the undermining of the consensus upon which the social cohesion of Canadian society was built throughout the 20th century [5]. To the issues of poverty and economic segmentation were added the problems of regional balkanization, nationalist claims by the people of Québec and Aboriginal Peoples, as well as demands from Charter groups (groups mentioned in s. 15) who are putting forward claims against a state that wants to be less interventionist than it has been in the past [6].

In conjunction with attempts to control the source and quality of immigration to Canada, the Canadian state currently insists upon putting forth the idea of Canadian citizenship as bestowing a privilege. It presents Canadian citizenship as a precious asset that is to be earned and given serious consideration. This vision is enunciated in a series of informational documents put out in 1996 by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. According to these documents, being a Canadian citizen is "to be loyal towards Canada; to be loyal towards the Queen of Canada and her representatives; to obey Canada's laws; to respect public and private property; to take care of Canadian heritage; to uphold the ideals of Canada". From that point on, new immigrants and all citizens are asked to take on the task of safeguarding and promoting the unity of the Canadian nation-state. The failure to do this, brings about accusations of disloyalty.

[267]

The federal approach on the issue of citizenship is also brought about by the challenge of immigration. Can Canadian society continue to integrate harmoniously its newcomers ? While still open to immigration, the Canadian state is concerned that as "resources once plentiful are now dear" [7] immigration may put a stress on Canada's ability to integrate newcomers in a viable and equitable manner. Apart from this concern, a number of issues have become an important focus of the federal government's concerns with citizenship. These include : the federal government's insistence on welcoming mainly financially independent immigrants and, if need be, genuine refugees and asylum seekers; its emphasis on responsible immigrants; and concerns over some of the perverse effects induced by the globalization of immigration (security, terrorism, criminality, abuses of the welfare state). In sum, concerns over these issues indicate that the Canadian state intends to control more closely the “quality”, volume and sources of immigration flows to Canada. The underlying assumption behind these recent orientations with regards to immigration is to ensure that immigrants become fully integrated Canadian citizens.

In 1997, the federal government made public documents from a committee that revised the immigration legislation. The Trempe report [8], as it came to be known, focused mainly on the ins and outs of citizenship and the selection criteria for immigrants [9]. This report is part of the new federal strategy on immigration that consists in making the federal government more visible throughout the selection and integration processes. As it was stated in the report, the federal government must recognize that it always will have a role in the establishment and integration of immigrants, as well as in the funding and establishment of services to oversee this integration process [10].

Fearing that Canadian citizenship has lost some of its prestige and value and that it no longer reflects a commitment to Canada and an endorsement and promotion of its heritage, the Trempe report proposes to strengthen the selection criteria for immigrants and the granting of citizenship [11]. The report encourages active and responsible citizenship. An active citizen would be one who is informed, responsible and takes part in public life (politics, community actions) as well as private life (family). Access to citizenship should be more limited by increasing the time of residency, fiscal responsibilities, knowledge about Canada, fluency in one of the official languages, lack of criminal record, and active participation [12].

Without fully endorsing the Trempe report, the new orientations on immigrations outlined in Building a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century: New Directions for Immigration and Refugee Policy and Legislation that aim ultimately to redefine the Canadian immigration legislation are definitely inspired by this report [13].

[268]

The changes in policy content around multiculturalism and citizenship in recent years have emerged largely in response to the public's and official's admonitions that the people interested in taking up Canadian citizenship must be made to understand that "loyalty to Canada must be given pride of place" [14]. With this in mind, the ongoing renewal of multiculturalism is focused on a three-pronged approach that clearly emphasizes values to be associated with citizenship: Canadian identity - people of all backgrounds should "feel a sense of belonging and attachment to Canada" - civic participation - they must be active citizens, concerned with shaping "the future of their communities and their country - and social justice - they must be involved in "building a society that ensures fair and equitable treatment and that respects the dignity of and accommodates people of all origins" [15]. The federal government is trying to reconfigure this policy by emphasizing notions of integration and participation rather than cultural diversity.

In other words, the underlying logic of the federal government's approach to immigration and multiculturalism aims to promote an understanding of citizenship that does not limit itself to a set of rights, but rather highlights the close relationship between citizenship and national identity. As it was said in a document published by the Privy Council Office as early as 1991, citizenship is first and foremost "an emotional tie, a sense of shared values and commitments to our country. Our shared Canadian citizenship provides a focus for unity that encompasses its parts, and brings our people together" [16]. In sum, the federal government's discourse on citizenship is far from neutral. It endorses an identity closely tied to that of a national (Canadian) identity.

[269]

In 1998, a new legislation, Bill C-63 (Citizenship of Canada Act) was introduced in the House of Commons [17]. This bill has as its goal the reevaluation of Canadian citizenship by enforcing stiffer criteria for residency, and the primacy of allegiance to Canada and its fundamental values, notably the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In recent debates in the House of Commons following the second reading of the legislation on citizenship (reintroduced as Bill C-16), the parliamentary secretary of the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration restated the rules upon which the federal legislation is based. These are as follow: 1) children born in Canada are automatically granted Canadian citizenship; 2) children born outside of Canada from parents who have their Canadian citizenship also receive Canadian citizenship; 3) immigrants must obtain their permanent residency status prior to making a request to obtain Canadian citizenship; 4) immigrants must prove their loyalty to Canada to obtain their citizenship; 5) immigrants must prove their knowledge about Canadian society and values; 6) immigrants must be knowledgeable of at least one of Canada's official languages [18]. The values to which the parliamentary secretary was referring to are the five founding constitutional principal defining the Canadian state: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of law.

Within this same debate, the spokesperson for the government party expressed clearly the fusion between citizenship and national identity. He said: To me and to so many Canadians from who I have heard, citizenship is about truly belonging to this society. It is anchored in allegiance to the values that Canadians share. It is a concept with real meaning and it is a proud celebration of what it means to be Canadian. That makes citizenship far more than just a piece of paper, more than just some box to be checked off on a form, more than a convenience for international travel. It makes the law on citizenship one of our most fundamental laws. Our citizenship law sets the ground rules for those who can truly call themselves Canadian. It captures the common understanding among Canadians about what it means to be one of us" [19].

[270]

This suggests that for one to truly integrate into Canadian society, it is not sufficient for citizens to simply conform to the civic practices established through the political institutions. It is also necessary that citizens embrace and demonstrate their loyalty and allegiance to the Canadian state. On another occasion during the debates in the House of Commons, the parliamentary secretary emphasized that : "It is important to note that what has never changed is a sense that citizenship is about joining the Canadian family, and a great family it is. It is about sharing in the values, traditions and institutions which define us as people and unite us as a nation and which made us the finest country in the world according to the United Nations Human Development Report for six years in a row. Thats no coincidence. It is because of who we are and what we represent and the citizenship of Canadians is part of that greatness that is ours" [20].

Finally, since the 1995 referendum, the federal government has spent large amounts of money towards the promotion of symbols of Canadian national identity. These include the free distribution of Canadian flags and huge budgets put towards the Canada Day celebrations (in 1999-2000, the Canadian Heritage ministry's budget for Canada Day was 5,4 millions, 65% of which was disbursed in Québec). Moreover, the federal government has promoted the visibility of certain of its initiatives, including some that are in areas of provincial responsibility (e.g. Millennium student scholarships, research grants and partnerships). The goals driving these initiatives are apparent. These initiatives are aimed at opposing the increasing inclination for the people of Québec to identify first and foremost as Quebecers of various origins and, furthermore, to promote the perception that the federal government represents the true national government [21].

From the federal government's perspective, the endurance of Québec nationalism and the affirmation of Aboriginal People's identity (and nationalism), threatens the structural integrity of the Canadian state and social cohesion of its national-political community. Consequently, the current initiatives on citizenship are the federal government's response to these threats, aiming to reaffirm the primacy of Canadian citizenship and undermine the impact of those other forms of identification.

[271]

Despite the fact that citizenship is usually discussed with respect to the naturalization of newcomers, by making the claim that this issue is of interests to all Canadians, it is hoped that a byproduct of these discussions will be the enhancement of Canadian pride or a renewed attachment to Canada felt by all Canadians including the people of Québec. It is not insignificant that the number of people in Québec who identify primarily as Quebecers has grown from 21 to 59% over the last 20 years [22] ; 29% consider themselves first and foremost as Quebecers and then Canadian, while 28% consider themselves as equally Canadian and Quebecers. Another research group has found that for Francophones in Québec, 63% identify as Quebecers, 26% as French-Canadian and 11% as Canadian. In contrast, 70% of Anglophones in Québec identify as Canadians and 5% as Quebecers [23]. According to Lisée, 51% of Allophones identified as Canadians in 1979, a number that has increased to 70% by 1999. The number of Allophones who identified as Quebecers increased from 0% to 12% by 1995, but decreased to 10% by 1999 [24].

The federal strategy, first elaborated in the 1990s, which aims to strenghten Canadian citizenship and identity, while undermining other forms of national identification perceived as threats to the Canadian social cohesion, is considered to be effective according to some experts. For example, Kymlicka, in Finding our Way, stated: "we know that were it not for the “ethnic vote”, the 1995 referendum on secession in Quebec would have succeeded. In that referendum, ethnic voters overwhelmingly expressed their commitment to Canada (...) more generally, all the indicators suggest that immigrants quickly absorb and accept Canada's basic liberal-democratic values and constitutional principles, even if their home countries are illiberal or non-democratic" [25]. According to Kymlicka, the high level of naturalization rates of immigrants is a strong indicator that immigrants identify with Canada and of the successful political integration of newcomers into Canadian society. This understanding is of course open to other interpretations [26].

Turning Towards Citizenship in Québec

The new emphasis on citizenship in the Québec state's discourse represents an attempt to assert the symbolic hegemony of the Québec state in the fields of politics and identity. The term hegemony is used here to suggest a process of appropriation of political and ideological autonomy by the state of Québec that has been emerging ever since the Quiet revolution. This process puts the Québec state at odds with the Canadian state in areas such as multiculturalism and integration of immigrants. Despite the fact that there are numerous similarities between the Québec and federal policies on immigration and diversity, the two diverge in significant ways. Thus, although respect for pluralism, emphasis on social justice and civic participation of all citizens of all origins are central to both the Québec and federal policies, the two differ in terms of defining the nation, especially the Québec nation [27].

[272]

Over the last three decades, the Québec state discourse and practices aim to open up the definition of citizenship to pluralism while simultaneously maintaining a particular recognition for Québec society. For example, several government initiatives uphold French language and culture in the following manner :

• The francization of public spaces through the adoption, in 1977, of the Charte de la langue française (Bill-101) that officially made French the language to be used by the state and its citizens ;
  
  
• The involvement of the Québec government in the selection of immigrants and refugees as a result of bilateral negotiations with the federal government to allow Québec to play a role in the selection of independent immigrants as well as in the integration of newcomers ;
  
  
• The establishment of a new juridical framework to work towards countering discrimination, promoting equality and recognizing diversity. This includes the Québec Charte des droits et libertés de la personne, adopted in 1975, which prohibits discrimination as a result of one's race, ethnic or national origins, etc (article 10) and which furthermore guarantees to individuals from ethnic minorities the right to maintain and further their own cultural lives with other members of their group (article 43), and the Déclaration sur les relations interethniques et interraciales adopted in 1985 ;
  
  
• The recognition, in 1981, of 11 Aboriginal Nations ;
  
  
• The passage of initiatives that aim to have various institutions accommodate or account for the cultural diversity of society. These include programs to promote equal access to employment, intercultural training, accommodations within social services and public institutions to help towards the integration of diverse cultures ;
  
  
• Active involvement in international initiatives.
  
  

[273]

Moreover, in 1981, the Québec government of the Parti Québécois elaborated a policy of convergence culturelle that stated that the peuple du Québec constitutes a nation. Notions of a common public culture and of a moral contract between immigrants and the host society began to come to the fore in Québec during the 1990s, with the new Policy Statement on Immigration and Integration [28] elaborated under a Québec Liberal government. It produced significant referents in the Québec discourse on integration and interculturalism. Considered as equal in terms of rights and obligations, immigrants were invited to adhere, in spite of their differences, to a common public culture defined by the democratic character of its institutions, the equality of all citizens before the law, the commonalty of the French language, the embrace of a diverse heritage, and pluralism. The policy then referred to the Québec society as a société distincte. The notions of peuple québécois and nation disappeared.

In 1996, following the election of the Parti québécois, the ministère des Communautés Culturelles et de l'Immigration du Québec was restructured and renamed into the ministère des Relations avec les Citoyens et de l'Immigration [29]. Needless to say, it occured in the post-referendum context and had a decisive political impact. It encouraged the whole Québec citizenry, including new immigrants, to develop a sense of belonging to the peuple québécois and the Québec political community (rather than to the francophone majority) and to embrace a common civic framework. The new ministry defines Québec citizenship as a political attribute common to all people residing on the territory of Québec. Citizenship is rooted in the sense of belonging that is shared by individuals who have rights, freedoms, and responsibilities with respect to the society to which they are a part. This citizenship recognizes differences and plurality of belonging while basing itself on the endorsement of common civic values [30].

As in the Canadian context, Québec state discourse on citizenship is marked by symbolic events. For example, a Citizenship Week, a Citizenship Prize, Certificates of Civic Merit, are steps undertaken by the Québec state to deepen notions of belonging to a common public culture. These initiatives undermine the perverse dichotomy in which all citizens were trapped, a dichotomy undermining the social cohesion of a common public culture: "we, the Québecois; you, the cultural communities - we, the cultural communities; you, the Québecois".

[274]

This new discourse on Québec citizenship engendered immediate reservations. In a notice made public in 1997, the Conseil des relations interculturelles du Québec (CRI), an organization that has as a mandate the task of advising the government on various issues with respect to immigration and interculturalism, questioned whether people should be strictly recognized on the basis of their status as citizens or future citizens, or if multiple identities or sense of belonging to given cultural communities should also be acknowledged. The CRI notes that the government's new directions with respect to citizenship are somewhat worrisome. The CRI felt that the government, in its new citizenship policy, did not take into account the various issues at stake in terms of immigration, cultural diversity and the specific needs of newcomers and ethnic minorities. Considering that some of the requirements for a modern Québec citizenship include diminishing inequalities linked to national or racial identity as well as the accommodation of diversity through the political institutions, it is problematic that the new policy ignores these issues [31].

The National Forum on Citizenship and Integration that was held on September 21 and 22, 2000 has sparked more heated debates on this issue. This forum was held in a particular context structured by two marking events. First, it was held in the aftermath of the debates in the House of Commons on Bill C-20 (or the federal Clarity Bill). These debates were significant for they discussed the issue of secession of Québec using only the terms "province" and "population", rather than "state" and "people". Second, the Forum was held following the debates on Bill 99 (An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State). This legislation put forth by the Québec government affirms the national diversity of Québec society. It describes this diversity as follow: a Francophone majority, Aboriginal Nations with ancestral privileges and treaty rights, an Anglophone community that has acquired a given number of minority rights, and minority groups that have established themselves, some recently, others a long time ago, following international immigration to Canada and who also contribute to Québec society.

[275]

During the opening keynote address for the Forum, the minister of the department of Relations avec les Citoyens et l'Immigration du Québec, clearly stated the reason for debating issues of citizenship and integration: the people of Québec constitute a nation. The peuple québécois has a history, its own democratic institutions, its laws, a common language and a Charte des droits et libertés de la personne. This peuple québécois is represented in its national assembly. Thus, it constitutes a nation. According to the minister, the challenge before the peuple québéois is to find projects and initiatives that can unite all citizens, including those who are not part of the Francophone majority. As he said: "Nous avons le défi de rechercher les voix d'une citoyenneté pleinement partagée" [32].

Therefore the underlying challenge is that of the coexistence or the tension between the political project of Québec citizenship and the vision put forth by the federal government. The federal government denies the right to self-determination as it is expressed by the Québec National Assembly. The Québec National Assembly is the pinnacle of the democratic representation of the peuple québécois, or in other words, the democratic voice of the citizens of the nation of Québec. Ultimately, the concept of citizenship as put forth by the Québec government is directly opposite to the federal understanding. The Québec government aims to represent a Québec society as a full entity, while the federal government recognizes the people of Québec as a sub-set of Canadian citizenship.

[276]

However, citizenship is not simply defined through political, social and cultural rights. Citizenship is also defined through a dynamic process that delineates inclusion, integration, and participation in public life. Moreover, issues of social justice or the prevention of economic, social, and political marginalization of large segments of society are closely linked to questions of citizenship. Citizenship is also about responsibilities. In this sense, citizenship is based on a civic contract that aims to define Québec citizens’ relations to the political institutions. Although voluntary, this civic contract aims to strengthen one's sense of belonging to the national-political Québec society. Oblivious to the inherent conflicts in society, according to the Minister responsible for citizenship, this approach aims to reiterate the needed consensus in society to develop a modern Québec. This consensus can only come into being if the society it aims to define shares a set of values [33]. More precisely, the ministerial document that was the basis for the public consultation states that there exists a specific Québec citizenship that transcends any sense of belonging whether political, ideological or ethnic in kind. This citizenship is expressed through democratic institutions, democratic life, laws, and a set of shared values. It introduces the concept of civic contract at the centre of Québec citizenship. It demarcates itself from the concept of the moral contract which was proposed by the Québec Liberal government to newcomers in the Policy Statement on Immigration and Integration of 1991. The civic contract addresses itself to all Québec citizens, not only to new immigrants. It speaks of citizenship by delineating its parameters in the following manner : democratic values and principles; respect for the legitimacy of laws ; French as the common public language; recognition of the Québec-Anglophone community; recognition of First nations; recognition of the contribution of immigrants; active participation in the political, social and cultural life.

The civic heritage outlined in this contract takes into account issues of rights and freedoms and the political institutions that have been adapted to accommodate the various social elements that are part of Québec society. This civic heritage is the sum total of the contribution of successive generations born in Québec or whom have come to establish themselves in Québec. It is and continues to be a dynamic process, a synthesis of everyone's contribution [34]. However, because the boundaries of Québec and Canadian citizenship are not clearly distinguished, we are confronted by a situation in which two identity-making processes that are in conflict with each other are operating simultaneously towards ends that are at odds with each other [35]. This makes it more difficult for citizens to participate fully in public life.

The preliminary documents to the Forum puts forth a three-pronged definition of citizenship. This definition of citizenship is anchored in a set of rights and obligations at the basis of all liberal democracies; in a society that is defined territorially (Québec) as well as symbolically or socially (peuple québécois); and finally through the willingness to participate and contribute to this society, a demand which requires more than a simple endorsement of shared values. However, this definition is counter to how the federal government defines the parameters of the national community. This issue is rarely acknowledged in the debates on citizenship.

[277]

Québec government in the Fall 2000 brought forth some opposition. The 350 participants at the Forum, most of which were part of community organizations (women's groups, ethnic community representatives, social rights activists), labor organizations, governments and some academics, examined the document at hand. The comments and criticisms emerging from this consultation also revolve around the three dimensions of citizenship defined in the preliminary document.

The first set of criticisms focuses on how the model of citizenship presented in the document revolves around a theoretical understanding of citizenship. These criticisms focus more specifically on the chapters dealing with principles and shared values. It was suggested that there was not enough emphasis on the real conditions of exercizing citizenship and especially the obstacles that limit the participation of various groups in society. Moreover, the struggles against marginalization and socioeconomic exclusion (poverty, illiteracy, discrimination) should be accompanied by a formal recognition of the role of community organizations. The contribution of these organizations is not recognized in the ministerial document. In this respect, the civic contract depicted is highly criticized because it makes demands upon individuals to take on responsibilities linked to citizenship, making individual citizens carry the burden of the perverse effects of globalization and of the state’s withdrawal from social welfare. For a number of the participants, this focus on the struggles against the marginalization needs to preceed any discussion on the political implications of citizenship. Without this focus on social justice and marginalization, citizenship can only be understood in terms formal-legal rights, a vision in which the more substantive understanding of the social and symbolic elements emphasized by the government are not recognized.

[278]

A second line of criticism focuses on the definition of peuple québécois. These take on a variety of aspects. For example the Conseil des relations interculturelles (CRI) argues that the ministerial document keeps on failing to fully acknowledge the cultural diversity of Québec society and the responsibilities of the state as a result of this diversity. The CRI perceives the endorsement of the proposed vision of citizenship as detrimental to interculturalism. Here, diversity needs to be understood as beneficial to society rather than a threat to the social cohesion. The fact that newcomers are asked to integrate in the institutions of the French majority [36] obliterates the pluralism of Québec society. Moreover, the CRI does not view Canadian and Québec citizenship as projects with goals counter to each other. Rather, the CRI feels that it is unfortunate that Québec is not willing to put forth a vision that is complementary to that of Canada. As the CRI mentions, the multiplicity of identities that emerge from these different visions of citizenship are not understood by most citizens of Québec as conflicting or as clashes of loyalty between two entities. The CRI is even doubtful that these two models of integration for newcomers are sources of tension or confusion. The CRI therefore does not view Canadian and Québec citizenship as political projects that negate each other [37].

Claude Bariteau, an anthropologist and founder in 2000 of the Rassemblement pour l'indépendance du Québec, is also critical of the definition of the peuple québécois put forward by the ministry. He raises three objections. First, the ministry's position is oblivious to the formal-legal framework of citizenship. The people of Québec are Canadian citizens. Canada is the one that naturalizes immigrants, sees to law and order and has prerogative on the international scene. In this sense, there is no Québec citizenship. Second, the ministerial position favors the political institutions that were defined through a monarchical understanding of democracy. These institutions have reduced Québec's responsibilities towards its citizens. To uphold the constitutional framework is to accept the diminished role of Québec. Finally, by insisting that there are two opposite national dynamics, a Canadian and a Québec one, the ministry is putting forward a nationalist understanding that remains within the concept of the "two-nations theory". Yet, a Québec citizenship does imply the creation of a state and the creation of a different frame of reference, one that directly defines a political nation [38].

[279]

A third set of criticisms emphasizes the hidden political agenda of the Québec government. A number of participants disagree that the motivations of the Québec government are limited to protecting a Francophone minority in North-America. As they stated: "Le projet de vouloir vivre ensemble ne doit être emprisonnée par une volonté de régler notre problème constitutionnel" [39]. Others fear that this process of consultation is aimed at reviving sovereignist enthusiasm [40]. This criticism is what brought the federal Intergovernmental Affairs Minister to suggest that this Forum was simply an exercise in propaganda. In one reply, he insisted that this was an attempt to pull Canada out of Québec, while awaiting for Québec to seceed from Canada. Citizenship is not a zero-sum game: "They [immigrants] know that identities add on to each other, they never subtract" [41].

Similarly, Danielle Juteau, a sociologist, attacks the Québec policy by arguing that this policy emphasizes a move away from multiple identities and the possibility of having more than one allegiance. She is critical of the fact that both citizenship and national identity are intertwined in this project. She asks whether one needs to identify as Québécois to be a responsible citizen and goes on to stress that making the access to the rights of citizenship dependent upon developing a sense of belonging to Québec society is highly problematic. She explains that what she perceives as emerging from this document is an emphasis on creating and reinforcing the role of the Québec government. While omitting to discuss the federal offensive on citizenship and national identity, she stresses that the Québec offensive is a willingness to institutionalize the Québec national identity and to subordinate to it all other identities. And finally, it is an attempt to favor a universal identity and suppress diversity [42]. In sum, there is an attempt to anchor Québec citizenship in a territorialized vision of cultural belonging, an understanding that is counter to the more trendy model of post-national citizenship as advanced by Yasmin Soysal [43].

[280]

Similar criticisms were expressed by various public personalities (including the leader of Québec's Action démocratique Party, spokesperson for Québec's Liberal party, the leader of Alliance Quebec and a few academics) insisting that multiple allegiances and identities are the norm and not the exception [44]. Reacting to the passages in the document that focused on the unwillingness of the federal government to recognize the peuple québécois and the issue of allegiances to Canada and Québec, the leader of the Anglophone group Alliance Quebec wrote: "For English-speaking Quebecers and indeed many other Quebec federalists to buy into this process, these political references will have to be removed from the document. Indeed, if the government is acting in good faith, it should be made clear at the beginning of the document that the Quebec government's desire to instill pride in living in Quebec is not in any way meant to diminish the attachment most Quebecers have to being citizens of Canada or to diminish the important symbols of being part of Canada, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian flag" [45]. Similarly, while recognizing that French is the language most commonly spoken in Québec, he questioned the assumption that French should be the common public language, especially in a Canada that is officially bilingual and where obtaining services from the state should be possible in either language.

The Montreal English newspaper The Gazette stated that: "The government should still behave as though non-francophone groups are by definition threatening to Quebec's continued existence as a French state. It is time the government recognized that it should not even try to mold the increasingly pluralistic society of contemporary Quebec into a single shape. The value of diversity must be affirmed" [46]. The editorialist of the Montreal French newspaper Le Devoir proposed similar objections and denounced this desire to make Québec a national state to which all citizens must identify exclusively [47].

[281]

All in all, the arguments deployed in the media attack mainly the nationalist and partisan nature of the government text. Whether it is perceived as a public relations operation or a gimmick to better sell the sovereignist cause, what is being expressed is a profound discomfort with the assertion made by the government in that document that there are conflicts of legitimacy between the federal and Québec’s competing visions of citizenship (rather than between one or several citizenship identities or one or several ethnic, religious or immigrant identities) as well as conflicts between the federal and Québec policies of diversity management. Many have accused the Québec government of promoting an exclusive Québec national identity. Others assert that the Québec government does not have the right or the legitimacy to discuss Québec citizenship for a Canadian citizenship is the only formal and legal form of citizenship possible [48]. For example, the Montreal West-Island newspaper The Suburban denounced the fact that immigrants, as a pre-condition to their acceptance as Québec citizens, will be expected to take a separate oath of allegiance to the Québec state and abide by the values and rules outlined in the civic contract [49].

These criticisms incited by the Forum highlight four main issues. First, these highlight the inability to locate the Québec government's discourse in the context of the federal offensive on citizenship and national identity. Second, these highlight the inability to locate the Québec government's discourse within the whole of its policies since the beginning of the 1980s. This new direction fails to highlight the tensions between civic nationalism, ethnic nationalism and communitarian tendencies that exist withing each of theses entities: the MRCI, the CRI and the sovereignist movement. Third, these criticisms also highlight the disquieting double-standard with which the federal government's discourse and that of the Québec government are evaluated, a double-standard that merits further study for it reveals the different ways neo-racism - le racisme différentialiste [50] - is concealed and propagated, especially through the media. Finally, they highlight the incapacity of locating Québec and Canadian discourses in a world context. Currently, all Western states are elaborating a discourse on citizenship with diverse functions, such as dealing with issues of violence and terrorism, or functions of social cohesion through policies of multiculturalism or even calls for partnerships with organizations in civil society. The federal and Québec discourses which are based on social cohesion, belonging and allegiance point to problems associated with the limits of nation-building projects and the dislocation of social solidarity in many societies, while omitting to address these world issues.

[282]

[283]

Conclusion

[284]

In Canada, debates on citizenship take on the important issue of symbolism. These debates are framed by a context in which the legitimacy of the society to which citizenship refers is contested, where tensions around power relations are not limited to the demands by rights activists, but also include demands made by the state, and wich is also affected by the impact of economic and social forces. Political institutions are confronted by the demands of minority groups that want to be recognized by the state. Moreover, the multinational character of Canada is also a challenge to citizenship, especially that the federal structures offer one nation (Québec) a political space in which it is able to develop its own political institution and voice. Hence, Canadian citizenship is confronted with the reality and challenge of a Québec nation. Thus, despite the fact that the preferred model of citizenship in the academic literature is a post-national model, both Canada and Québec advance a model of citizenship that is anchored in a national space. The federal and Québec understandings of citizenship are far from endorsing a model of citizenship that is not anchored in territory and cultural belonging. Although some lament this fact, we are only commenting that this is the case. To endorse a model of post-national citizenship is to wrongly suggest that the nation-state no longer plays an important role in citizenship. It is also to endorse an understanding of citizenship that presents itself as free from universalizing aims, but which remains nevertheless normative. The debates on citizenship, whether in Canada or Québec, put forth an understanding of the citizen as attached to a national community. In both cases, citizenship and national identity are intertwined concepts. The real Canadian citizen proves his loyalty and allegiance to Canada first and foremost. According to Morton, Canadian citizenship is a “soft” form of citizenship (une citoyenneté faiblarde), weaker than the European models. In contrast, Québec citizenship is a “hard” form of citizenship for it attempts to develop a civic and linguistic solidarity without nuances: Une citoyenneté québécoise titille ceux et celles qui recherchent une solidarité civique et linguistique sans trop y mettre de nuances. Elle perturbe les autres qui se sentent à l'aise avec des allégeances multiples ou qui refusent de marcher au pas derrière les fifres et les tambours de qui que ce soit d'autre [51]. As this confirms, the debate on citizenship is extremely normative and politicized. What seems acceptable in the Canadian discourse is often condemned in the Québec case by those who oppose the idea of Québec citizenship.

[285]

It should be said that those who criticize the Québec government on its citizenship initiatives often turn a blind eye to how the Canadian government deals with this issue. It would be wrong to suggest that both Canada and Québec do not allow for multiple allegiances and identities or even pluralism. Canada and Québec both recognize the legitimacy of hyphenated identities. Québec even mentions cultural rights. However, it should be noted that while Canada presents itself as having fully developed political and national community, Québec remains open as it struggles to gain recognition. It should also be noted that Québec citizenship defines Canadian citizenship [52]. Citizens of Québec always remain citizens of Canada, even when they identify with the Québec political space. The project is therefore truncated. And most participants at the Forum did come to this realization as their criticism clearly demonstrates. They have attacked each of the tenets of the government's proposal from the references to the national character of Québec, to the use of French as a common public language, the idea of the civic contract and even the conflicting models of integration. If citizenship is essentially anchored in a political association, the ambiguity of the political status of Québec, which is always defined as a sub-set of the Canadian political space, can only undermine a model of Québec citizenship.

[286]