The Waffle and Quebec
By Patricia Smart
The 20th Anniversary of the Waffle
The Waffle and Quebec PATRICIA SMART midst the ongoing confusion surrounding the Meech Lake Accord and the NDP's contradictory position on it, it is instructive to look back at the relationship that existed between the Waffle and the Quebec wing of the NDP in 1971, and the potential we saw at that time for a new politics growing out of an alliance between the Quebecois and English-Canadian left. Just before the Quebec NDP election last December, president Michel Agnaieff stated, in an interview with the Canadian Press, that the convention would be a waste of time for Quebeckers, since the present mood of the party is so hostile to Quebec that there's no hope of influencing it. Not only were none of the seven candidates for the federal leadership anywhere close to being fluently bilingual or knowledgeable about Quebec's history, but one of the front-runners, Dave Barrett, had publicly stated that he thought Quebec no more distinct a society than Alberta or British Columbia. The contrast with 1971, when between them the Waffle and the tiny Quebec wing of the NDP managed to make Quebec's right to self-determination a major issue in the leadership race and at the convention, is depressing to say the least. The question of Quebec for the NDP has been an oscillation between principle and the crassest of vote-seeking tactics since the party's founding; arid the party with its Western base and lack of support in Quebec does of course face a real dilemma in attempting to determine its position on Quebec. In the mid-1960s, the party had a progressive
A
Studies in Political Economy 32, Summer 1990
--------------
195
Studies in Political Ecomomy
position on Quebec. very close to the one the Waffle would later include in its manifesto - that is. recognition of Quebec as a nation and of its right to some kind of special status within Canada. But after five years of bombings and militancy in Quebec, Trudeau was carried to power in 1968 by an electorate which wanted a leader who would deal with the Quebec problem once and for all. and an electorate that felt reassured by this French-Canadian who scornfully dismissed Quebec's claims to nationhood. And so it was into an atmosphere of renewed conservatism over the Quebec question in the party that the trouble-making Waffle group emerged. emphasizing. with greater and greater clarity over the years of its existence. the right of the Qu6Mcois to determine their own future. For those of us who met to draft the Waffle manifesto in late 1968 and on into 1969. the unprecedented nature of events in Quebec and the obvious power of the alliance between Quebec intellectuals. artists and labour around the national question was not a problem. but an inspiration and a model. Our own nationalism made us understand instinctively what the Qu6Mcois were talking about and gave us respect for their desire for self-determination. As well, we felt that the growth of left nationalism in English Canada offered the possibility for the first time of a real alliance with Qu6b6cois socialists. with whom we would be united in a common struggle against American cultural and economic domination. "Two nations. one struggle," we said in the manifesto. But alas. as Canadians were reminded again last year in the 'Free Trade' election, the Qu6b6cois have some difficulty with the idea that the Americans are the enemy and that we are the allies: they invariably seem to get that particular equation turned around. Still. the Waffle did gain a fair amount of credibility in Quebec. and it is conceivable that. if we had been allowed to continue to exist within the NDP. the party would by now have the base in Quebec it has been seeking so desperately for the last decade. At the very least. we managed to keep the idea of Quebec's right to self-determination alive in English Canada through the traumatic days of October 1970 and its aftermath. 196
P. Smart/On the Wame
My own memories of the beginning of the Waffle are very much tied up with Quebec, for at the time I was a PhD student, totally immersed in the novels of Quebec writer Hubert Aquin and the nationalist fervour that had produced them. I was probably typical of many Canadian students of Quebec culture in that I found in that culture a passion and sense of identity that seemed lacking in my own; and typical of Canadian students as well in the fact that I really didn't know very much about our own culture and literature. At the University of Toronto, where I had done my undergraduate work, there had been only one course which touched on Canadian literature. It was called "American and Canadian Literature," and in it we became thoroughly familiar with the work of Emerson, Thoreau, Poe and Henry James, and then - about two weeks before the final exam - were given a quick run-through of the poetry of E.J. Pratt. As I recall, my understanding of the parallels between our own struggle and that of Quebec began to take shape during some long walks with Jim Laxer in Macdonald Park near the Queen's University campus, on lovely fall afternoons when we probably should have been in class. We talked about George Grant, whom I was just starting to read, and the socialist independantiste journal parti pris, which had been produced by Quebec students in the 1960s, and had had an enormous impact on the politicization of Quebec culture. A few months later, when I read Dennis Lee's Civil Elegies, I finally saw in our literature that passion and despair about the nation, to which we were trying to give birth, that I had recognized in the works of Quebec writers. It was Jim Laxer who had the greatest influence in shaping the Waffle position on Quebec, and in convincing us of the importance of Quebec in our political agenda. As early as 1963, he had organized a large demonstration on the University of Toronto campus to protest against Donald Gordon's blundering statement that there were no FrenchCanadians qualified to occupy positions in the higher echelons of the CNR. That statement led to Gordon being burned in effigy in Quebec. Both Laxer's MA and PhD work centred 197
Studies in Political Ecomomy
on the nationalism of Henri Bourassa, which, in spite of its eccentricities, contains a 'two nations' position not unlike the one the Waffle would adopt. It was Laxer who argued during the early meetings of the group for the importance of including a fairly lengthy statement on Quebec in the manifesto, and it was he who eventually drafted those four paragraphs. The main points of those paragraphs were: that "there is no denying the existence of two nations within Canada, each with its own language, culture and aspiration;" that "English Canada and Quebec can share common institutions to the extent that they share common purposes;" that "an English Canada concerned with its own national survival would create common aspirations that would help to tie the two nations together once more;" and finally that "socialists in English Canada must ally themselves with socialists in Quebec in this common cause." It is worth noting that the resolution produced by the party leadership to counter the Waffle manifesto (the infamous "Marshmallow Resolution") represented a total retreat on the question of Quebec, although it reproduced, in a less socialist form, the main points of the Waffle position vis-a-vis American domination. Even its title, "For a United and Independent Canada," indicates that it might have been our position on Quebec that upset the party brass more than anything else in the manifesto. Unlike our two nations position, theirs (like that of many people within the NDP today) reduced Quebec to one of the many regions of Canada experiencing "disparity of income and opportunity within Confederation. " Ironically, one of our main opponents in the debate over the Waffle position on Quebec was John Harney. In the pages of the September 1969 New Democrat he objected to our recognition of Quebec as a nation, arguing it would be interpreted by the public as an acceptance of the possibility of a divided Canada. Jean-Paul Harney's constituents in Quebec in the 1988 election would have been bemused to learn of this former incarnation of their supposedly French-Canadian leader. The Waffle's statements on Quebec and attempt to form an alliance with certain elements of the tndependantiste left
i..
198
P. Smart/On the Warne
intensified after the convention, mainly through the efforts of Jim Laxer. At the Waffle conference on the "Americanization of Canada" at the University of Toronto in March 1970, Laxer went beyond the manifesto position to talk about Quebec independence, stating that, "English Canadian socialists must recognize that Quebec is a nation, in the full sense of the word, and that Quebeckers must have the right to self-determination up to and including the right to form an independent Quebec state," By the end of the year, Laxer was the Waffle candidate in the federal leadership race, and, in the wake of the October Crisis and the War Measures Act, was more convinced than ever of the need to defend the Quebec independence movement in English Canada, and develop a new relationship between English Canada and Quebec. In a December 1970 interview with La Presse, he suggested that the NDP should seek some accommodation with the Parti Quebecois in terms of electoral strategy. (Later the Quebec NDP would do that by deciding not to run provincially.) A few weeks later, in January 1971, Le Devoir published the text of the Waffle resolution on Quebec, prepared for the upcoming convention. In response to its recognition of Quebec's right to self-determination and the call for an alliance between socialists in the two nations, the newspaper's editorialist, Claude Lemelin, wrote that "the suggestions outlined by Jim Laxer and the Waffle group could turn out to be the only way to maintain fraternal links and an intimate and fruitful cooperation between the two nations in Canada," David Lewis's response was to accuse the Waffle of breaking with the party's federalist stance and of fraternizing with the Parti Quebecois. It was clearly not coincidental that Raymond Laliberte, the highly respected former leader of the Quebec Teacher's Union, decided at that point that the NDP was worth taking seriously. In February of 1971 he was elected president of the party's Quebec wing, and the group passed a resolution on selfdetermination almost identical to that of the Waffle. By the time the convention took place in April, Quebec had become a major issue on the party's agenda and in the leadership campaign. Which is not to say of course that our Quebec resolution was endorsed by the convention: we 199
~~-
--
------------~
---
-~-
Studies in Political Ecomomy
lost by 428 votes (853 against to 425 for). Almost exactly the same number of votes separated David Lewis and Jim Laxer on the fourth and final ballot of the leadership contest (1046 to 612). The party also heavily rejected what, in context, seemed a ridiculous compromise resolution from Ed Broadbent, calling both for continued support of federalism and a recognition of Quebec's ultimate right to determine its own future. In retrospect, it's actually not a bad position; but the mood at the time was one of polarization. When the debate on Quebec began on the floor of the convention, delegates were lined up at the 'Yes' or 'No' microphones, depending on their position. Ed, however, stood in the centre of the floor, and when his turn came to speak he demanded a microphone in the middle, saying that his position was both 'Yes' and 'No'. John Gray later wrote in Saturday Night that his performance indicated you could have a PhD and still be an idiot. The resolution the party finally adopted, drafted by Charles Taylor, seemed aimed at salving the consciences of party members as far as the War Measures Act was concerned, without making the slightest concession to Quebec. It affirmed the party's commitment to a strong federalist position, while deploring the use of force as a means of maintaining national unity. The 1971 convention marked the last of the Waffle's public statements on Quebec. Not only was our own right to exist (and determine our future) within the party soon to come under attack, but the trauma of the events of October 1970 and especially Laporte's murder sank the Quebec left into a depression and apathy that was to last for several years. Looking back, though, at the rapprochement we did manage to achieve with some elements of the Quebec left before 1971, and the extent to which we raised the country's consciousness on the Quebec question, we can be proud of our record. Twenty years later, major Canadian politicians, including some in the NDP, are willing to publicly demonstrate, in a way that would have been inconceivable in the 1960s, a frightening amount of hostility to Quebec and an inability to appreciate the richness offered the whole country by the distinct society which it obviously is. It seems all too likely now that Meech Lake will fail, making it close 200
P. Smart/On the Waffle
to impossible for Quebec to remain within the country. And the tragedy is that many of these politicians don't know enough about Quebec to recognize the implications of what they're doing. Our history seems to reveal an almost cyclical need, one which seems to arise in almost every generation, to recreate this country and recommit ourselves to it. Every major politician since John A. Macdonald has known, though, that building a nation on the northern half of this continent involves accommodating Quebec. The present refusal, on the part of English Canadians, to listen to Quebec seems to indicate an inability to conceptualize the nation this time round, a lack of imagination, energy and generosity that may well do the country in. Maybe this twentieth anniversary celebration of the Waffle should be the occasion for a new initiative on the part of the nationalist left in English Canada. We learned in the past that the media, the politicians and the Canadian people were interested in listening to the things we knew needed to be said. And in spite of the apathy that seems to be abroad in the country, surrounding the question of Quebec, I think they would listen again to a restatement of the importance of Quebec to this country and the necessity of respecting i!s (ij,stirict aspirations.
201