Canada will host the new Defense, Security and Resilience Bank. Very roughly, it will be a sort of financial arm of NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization), in order to support the defense capacity of member countries.
Four Canadian cities, including Montreal, are vying for the head office, prestige and hoped-for benefits. The support of Quebec politicians for the candidacy of their metropolis is almost as unanimous as for its hockey team. Only Quebec Solidarity opposes it, for ideological reasons.
(Ms. Ghazal, we are also against the war, but go and explain that to Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump.)
Despite Montreal’s qualities, Ottawa’s candidacy seems more logical, if only because the federal capital is both the seat of government and the Ministry of Defense and the Army, as well as that of almost all embassies foreigners present on Canadian territory.
This will not stop Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal from lobbying in the hope that the Defense Bank will set up shop there, and each of the mayors and prime ministers from praising their city and their province. Because that’s what politicians do.
What is fascinating are some of the arguments used to promote the Montreal candidacy.
In a letter to National Post, the Minister of International Relations and La Francophonie of Quebec, Christopher Skeete, recalled that Montreal is “the only North American metropolis where French is the official language and where English remains essential in business, science and diplomacy.”
NATO headquarters is in fact located in Brussels, and its two official and founding languages are French and English, as specified in Article 14 of the North Atlantic Treaty.
Bernard Drainville, now Minister of the Economy, added a layer, mentioning that the 18 countries which supported Canada “would be very happy if the bank landed in a multilingual city” where one can “find people who speak [leur] languishing”.
Other strong points of Montreal were highlighted. Yes, yes, the link with Europe, international organizations, artificial intelligence, aerospace (it’s not the Defense Bank that will build military planes, but let’s move on).
But “the only North American metropolis where English remains essential”? “A multilingual city”?
The government which, for eight years, has put at the heart of its legislative action the threat of English and the decline of French (which is not “declining” that much, by the way) suddenly sees virtues in the bilingualism and multilingualism of its metropolis?
In fact, it is mainly English that is in question. Nobody speaks “multilingual”. But many Germans, Norwegians, Finns and Eastern Europeans speak English, not counting the British and Americans. And it’s true that Montreal is more English-speaking than Vancouver, Toronto or even Ottawa are French-speaking. But since when has the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) found this to be an advantage?
We are talking about the same government that increased the language requirements for small businesses, despite the additional costs and the message sent to entrepreneurs, and despite the tenuous link between the language of work with international clients and partners and the language spoken in public.
We are talking about the same government that has made English-speaking universities thirsty and raised the cost of studies for students in the ROC (rest of Canada) because the previous prime minister found that too much English was spoken in Montreal.
We are talking about the same government that imposed a ceiling on students who can study in English at CEGEP, and which threatens to force students already registered in English for professional training and adults to take their courses in French.
We’re talking about the same government that thought about legislating to ban “Hello-Hi“. And there, we praise the English character of the metropolis? Well then. It’s Michael Rousseau who would be happy.
The prize for cognitive dissonance nevertheless goes to the Parti Québécois (PQ), whose MP Pascal Paradis (hi, my friend!) offered a vibrant plea for the candidacy of Montreal, praising the “linguistic diversity” of Montreal and denouncing the “Fear campaign” in Toronto, after the Ontario Prime Minister not-so-subtly mentioned the possible holding of a referendum in Quebec.
All right. Can we put ourselves in the shoes of NATO leaders for just two minutes?
The member countries of your organization chose Canada, and a little Mark Carney too, following the repositioning against the United States illustrated by his speech in Davos.
For the headquarters of the new Defense Bank, you have the choice between four cities. One of them is located in a province that could secede, or at the very least hold a referendum on the issue, as the leader of the Parti Québécois promises. Incidentally, he is also the politician who has the best chance of becoming prime minister in five months.
Paul St-Pierre Plamondon also said that he considers that Mark Carney – the guy who won Canada’s candidacy – is in a position of “colonial domination” over Quebec, as England could be towards India or South Africa. No joke.
Another sovereignist party leader, Yves-François Blanchet, argued for his part that Canadian federalism represents a greater threat to Quebec than the United States.
Even if the inflated rhetoric is more about posture than content, will you seriously insist on locating the headquarters of your new organization in a region that could be torn for years over its political status, before and after a possible referendum, when there are other perfectly suitable cities, including the country’s capital (Ottawa) and its financial metropolis (Toronto)?
Me neither.
The “fear campaign” that politicians of all stripes have denounced is not against Quebec, and it does not come from Toronto. It is a very Quebec product, manufactured by independentist politicians and directed towards Ottawa, because it serves their interests.
But, sometimes, the boomerang returns and there are consequences. It would be honest to recognize it.
