Politique canadienne

A12 - Managing Diversity: Language and Identity

Date: Jun 3 | Heure: 12:00pm to 01:30pm | Salle:

Chair/Président/Présidente : Noah Vanderhoeven (University of Western Ontario)

Discussant/Commentateur/Commentatrice : Valérie Vezina (Kwantlen Polytechnic University)

The Canadian Senate : From Territorial to Official Language Communities Representation?: André Lecours (University of Ottawa), Aliyah Datoo (University of Ottawa)
Abstract: Theories of federalism emphasize the importance of upper houses as spaces for the representation of constituent units and, therefore, for the exercise of shared rule. Canada, a quintessential federation, lacks this type of upper house, as its unelected Senate is unable to speak on behalf of provinces. Yet, in the context of such inability to offer provincial representation, the Senate may have developed an alternative role of representation for another type of political communities in the country, namely official language communities. This paper analyzes the paradox of the upper house of a long-standing federation designed to provide territorial representation but falling short of part of its original mandate. It discusses how the Senate’s shortcomings led to it becoming an object of reform proposals and a target for the politics of Western alienation. The paper then documents and analyzes how and to what extent the Senate has transitioned towards a role for the representation of a different type of marginalized community within the federation, Francophones outside Québec.

Hierarchies of Authority: Comparing the Chrétien, Harper and Trudeau Governments’ Use of Authority Framing in Official Languages Governance: Timothy van den Brink (Simon Fraser University)
Abstract: This presents a novel analytical framework of authority framing, which elucidates how federal administrations present the relationship between those governing and those being governed, and therefore a hierarchy of authority in democratic governance. Specifically, building on Skogstad (2003), we first differentiate between state-centered, market-based, expert and popular bases of authority. Second, we discern at which stage of the policy cycle – agenda setting, policy formulation, decision making, policy implementation, and policy evaluation (see Anderson 1975) – government is attributing a role to the four bases of authority. We compare the Chrétien, Harper, and Trudeau governments by collecting and classifying 1,910 references drawn from government statements, policy instruments, and ministerial reports. To conduct this study across representative corpora, we incorporate large language models to extract datapoints from text documents. The analysis reveals a consistency in the presented involvement of state, public, private, and expert authority across the three administrations. State authority is shown to dominate throughout the policy process, while public and expert voices are briefly elevated during agenda-setting stage. Unsurprisingly, the public is consistently designated as the primary beneficiary of policy outputs. However, beneath these overarching similarities lie important variations, illuminating distinct philosophies on governance, official languages, and Canadian society. The Chrétien government's invocations of state authority emphasize ministers and ministries, reflecting a centralized, executive-driven approach. The Harper government's consistent designation of “all Canadians” – as opposed to specific communities – as policy beneficiaries, reveals a populist framing. Finally, the Trudeau government’s heavy use of self-referential language and framing of community organizations as passive recipients underscores a paternalistic hierarchy for official languages governance.

Analyser les cadres visuels : comment les médias québécois représentent-ils l'immigration: Dominic Duval (Université du Québec à Montréal)
Abstract: Dans le contexte de l’intensification des flux migratoires, l’immigration s’est souvent vue désignée comme bouc émissaire de nombreux problèmes de nature sociale et économique. Le premier ministre du Québec a même affirmé en 2024 que la crise du logement avait été entièrement causée par ces flux migratoires. Comment ce phénomène est-il abordé par les médias? Plus spécifiquement, comment les immigrants sont-ils représentés dans les journaux au Québec? Nous nous intéresserons particulièrement aux représentations visuelles de l’immigration véhiculées dans les médias. Les cadres visuels auraient encore plus d’impact sur l’opinion publique que le cadrage contenu à l’intérieur des nouvelles (Messaris et Abraham 2001). En raison de la nature réaliste des images, le cadrage qui se produit à travers les images est moins directement évident, mais potentiellement plus efficace pour communiquer une interprétation spécifique. Un exemple de ce type de cadrage visuel, dans le contexte de l’immigration, est le recours à des images de très grandes foules de migrants par les médias de droite qui s’insèrent dans une vision alarmiste de la situation (Hjerm 2007) ou encore à des photos de murs et barbelés afin de mettre de l’avant la dimension « sécuritaire » de ces débats (voir Sniderman, Hagendoorn, et Prior 2004). Il importe donc de s’intéresser aux images présente dans les articles de nouvelles des médias québécois. Pour ce faire, nous analyserons les images accompagnant les articles abordant l’immigration dans les principaux journaux québécois (Le Journal de Montréal, La Presse, Le Soleil et Le Devoir) et ce, depuis 2015. L’ensemble des images sera étudié à l’aide de méthodes d’analyse automatisée dite Bags of Visual Word (BoVW - Torres, 2024).

Understanding the Implications of the Reference re Secession of Quebec: The Duty to Negotiate as Part of a Fundamental Constitutional Principle of Dialogue: Ian Peach (Wolastoqey Nation in New Brunswick), Richard Mailey (University of Alberta)
Abstract: In the Quebec Secession Reference, Supreme Court of Canada was clear that, when there is an unambiguous expression by a clear provincial majority that they wish to leave Canada, the partners in the federation have a duty to negotiate new constitutional arrangements. We wonder, though, if this secession-centric description of the Court’s opinion fully captures its nuance and breadth. Alberta’s constitutional referendum in October 2021, on whether to eliminate the Constitution’s commitment to equalization, brings this question into focus. To justify the referendum, the provincial government invoked a novel reading of the Secession Reference, arguing that negotiations are required when there is a clearly expressed provincial desire for any constitutional change. Alberta was right to delink the duty to negotiate from secession, we suggest, but wrong to frame it in such all-or-nothing terms. Rather, the duty to negotiate is a specific sub-principle of a larger constitutional principle demanding dialogic resolution of constitutional differences. This is supported by both a close reading of the Secession Reference and by Canada’s historical practice of constitution-making, especially in the years following Quebec’s Quiet Revolution. As a principle, dialogue is nuanced; what it demands of our governments will vary depending on the seriousness of the conflict for the ongoing health of the Canadian political community, with the duty to negotiate being at the most serious end of that continuum. Still, a fundamental constitutional principle it is, which leads us to question whether the seemingly total rejection of constitutional dialogue since the failure of the Charlottetown Accord should be seen as a cumulative dereliction of governments’ constitutional duty.