Internal conflict sows division at Quebec Community Groups Network

Two weeks ago, the Quebec Community Groups Network (QCGN), an umbrella group meant to serve as a unified voice for Quebec’s English speaking communities, announced that nine of its member organizations had quit. In the time since then the number has increased to 13, with six of the organizations’ board members also publically declaring that they would no longer be involved.

The groups involved include the Council for Anglophone Magdalen Islanders (CAMI), Committee for Anglophone Community Action (CASA), English Community Organization of Lanaudière (ECOL), English Language Arts Network (ELAN), Megantic Englishspeaking Community Development Corporation (MCDC), Neighbours

Association of Rouyn-noranda, North Shore Community Association (NSCA), Quebec Writers’ Federation (QWF), Vision Gaspé-percé Now (VGPN), Voice of English-speaking Québec (VEQ), and the 4 Korners Family Resource Center.

Brigitte Wellens, the Executive Director of VEQ, said that the decision to leave QCGN was not one made lightly.

“It’s not one particular incident,” Wellens said. “We felt disrespected on a number of different occasions.”

The VEQ director said that tensions between QCGN leadership and the various groups had been increasing over the last 18 months despite various efforts to continue to work together. Ultimately, she said, all of the issues revolve around a fundamental disagreement with the way the organization is being run.

“There needs to be a review or a change of leadership, and there needs to be a review of the governance structure of the QCGN,” she said. “We do believe the QCGN has a role to play, they’re just not filling their role adequately right now and we don’t feel like they’re representing us the way that they should be.”

Geoffrey Chambers, President of QCGN, claimed that the departures are the result of government push back against the organization’s advocacy work.

“There’s no other really rational explanation,” he said, “They’re not saying we’re wrong in what we’re say about bill 21 or bill 40 or this new question around services in English, it’s just a matter of our being sufficiently effective to irritate their funders (…) They’re not saying our positions are wrong, they’re saying we’re speaking too loudly.”

Chambers said that all of the groups that left were highly dependent on government funding, and argued that the position that there is a governance issue is just a veiled way of saying that QCGN should quiet down.

“The majority of the (English-speaking) community wants us to be energetic in defending our community’s rights and interests,” he countered, adding that the groups that left, “are not really connected with a very substantial proportion of the overall population of our community.”

Chambers backed up his claim by pointing out that five of the six board members who publically “resigned” earlier this week had already been expelled from the board when their member associations quit.

“We think they’ve been manipulated into behaving in a way that is contrary to the interests of their populations, and we think that they will be hearing that from their populations,” he said, adding that the QCGN would be happy to take back anyone who changes their mind.

“We will do everything we can to reach out to them up to, but not including, changing our positions.” He said.

Gerald Cutting, President of the Townshippers’ Association and Vice President of QCGN, put out a call for peace during a time he referred to as “a crisis in the English speaking community” brought on by government legislation.

“Yes there are real differences that are emerging in QCGN, but this is not the time to be weakening that body that has been, for years now, the official advocacy vehicle for the English-speaking community,” Cutting said, noting that government proposals restricting access to English service to “historical Anglophones” are just one example of a worrisome trend in policymaking in the province at the moment.

Perhaps not surprising, given his double role, Cutting said that the Townshippers recently passed a motion stating that the regional association has had a very positive relationship with QCGN throughout the years. He argued, however, that the most important thing to do at this point is to put differences aside.

“We need all hands on deck,” he said. “What we need to do now is recognize, yes, that there are differences that have to be dealt with, but let’s not, in the process, destroy ourselves.”

Cutting acknowledged that there has always been a tension between urban and rural groups when it comes to advocacy, noting that many of the groups that have left QCGN come from more remote communities.

“What has always been the case is that the rural organizations face very different challenges than the urban setting of Montreal,” he said, using that as the basis for an argument that groups need to band together.

Asked about what happens next, Wellens said the situation is complicated.

“Through all of this the QCGN has mentioned in the media, whether on the radio or in the papers, that it’s sad that it’s come to this because this is a time when the English speaking community needs to stick together, and I could not agree more,” she said. “They are absolutely correct in that statement.”

Having been put in a situation where the group that is supposed to advocate on their behalf treats them and their positions like an insignificant minority, however, the VEQ Executive Director said it is not clear where to go from here.

“We’re going to continue working,” she said, explaining that part of that work, on top of the usual work of the organizations themselves, now has to be a discussion about how to work together effectively in a new reality.

“We don’t want it to be regions against Montreal,” she said while at the same time noting that, “The government doesn’t want to have to work with 50 different groups.”

The challenge, then, becomes finding an effective way to come together.

“You can’t paint the whole English speaking community with one paintbrush” Wellens said. “It’s not a one-size-fits-all approach, and it can’t be.”