Quebec: A Nation

jdobbin · November 22, 2006

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/quebec_nation

Bombshell dropped in Parliament.

Lots of people have criticized Ignatieff about this. So is it a good idea now that Harper says so?

Hydraboss · November 22, 2006

I support the first proposal that Kwebek should be recognized as a nation outside of Canada.

scribblet · November 22, 2006

"Within a united Canada"

Not necessarily a good idea, however, my guess is, he's trying to head the bloc off at the pass. He's pre-empted the Bloc motion they were to introduce on Thursday - the CPC would have voted against it. This motion is not as much of a slap in the face to Quebekkers.

Technocrat · November 22, 2006

what a completely pointless and stupid gesture imho... what exactly makes quebec so freakin special? What they have a distinct culture?... what a load of claptrap. Every province has a distinct culture and i have been to them all.

Pandering to one province does nothing to unify the country...

i have many more thoughts on this subject but i have to make dinner so i shall return.

ClearWest · November 22, 2006

I guess it's psychological. They're not really their own nation, but they get a nice meaningless label saying that they're a 'nation within Canada'. Makes them feel special, I suppose. It's a great way for the PM to acknowledge someone without actually giving them anything.

But while we're giving out the status of 'nationhood', why don't they hand one out to me, or to you, or to all the other provinces, or to all the native tribes. "The nation of John Murphey within a united Canada"... I like the ring to that.

jdobbin · November 22, 2006

"Within a united Canada"
Not necessarily a good idea, however, my guess is, he's trying to head the bloc off at the pass. He's pre-empted the Bloc motion they were to introduce on Thursday - the CPC would have voted against it. This motion is not as much of a slap in the face to Quebekkers.

Conservatives were calling it a dumb idea last week. What's changed?

Leafless · November 22, 2006

Harper is opening a can of worms.

Recognizing Quebec as any kind of nation is dangerous business, even if his definition concludes it is a nation within Canada.

Does Mr. Harper fully realize the full implications this could present.

The definition of a COUNTRY according to the 'Concise Oxford Dictionary' is : 1-a "the territory of a nation with it's own government; (a) state. ( a territory possessing its own language, people, culture etc."

The real Quebec fireworks should be beginning in a short time.

One other concern is, all other provinces could be seen as a territory which is :1. " the extent of the land under the jurisdiction of a ruler, State, city etc."

Why not simply divide the country into ten countries and get it over with.

watching&waiting · November 22, 2006

Here is where I and many others will be at opposite sides. I will fight to the death to give Quebec equal status in Canada, but I also will fight to the death to make sure they do not get extra status within Canada.

I really do not care about them declaring Quebec a country, if they leave Canada. They would have to take their share of the national debt and leave with the lands they came into confderation with. All the lands given to them after confederation will have to be returned and then either used to make a new province or divided up among the remaining provinces.

But to be recognized as a country before that, I do not think so. I am opposed to any such thing being done, and I will make sure that my MP knows this and hopefully the majority of the voters in my area will do the same. That way we can assure ourselves that one MP will not vote for this.

jdobbin · November 22, 2006

Is this one more reason why some people won't Conservative next election?

Michael Hardner · November 22, 2006

jdobbin - Not really. The rock bed Harper supporters will only have fringe parties to go to, and he knows this. He has stolen thunder from the Liberals with this move, and probably gained some support in Quebec too.

I also will fight to the death to make sure they do not get extra status within Canada.

W&W- Get fightin' ! They already have extra status within Canada - control over their own language laws, and also (I believe) more responsibilities than the other provinces when it comes to immigration.

It remains to be seen if this gesture will result in anything substantive happening, though.

Saturn · November 22, 2006

I guess it's psychological. They're not really their own nation, but they get a nice meaningless label saying that they're a 'nation within Canada'. Makes them feel special, I suppose. It's a great way for the PM to acknowledge someone without actually giving them anything.

Don't worry, Harper isn't done yet. The next step will be to spend whatever is left of the surplus (or possibly more) in Quebec. The election is quick approaching, so this next step in buying votes in Quebec is coming soon.

jdobbin · November 22, 2006

jdobbin - Not really. The rock bed Harper supporters will only have fringe parties to go to, and he knows this. He has stolen thunder from the Liberals with this move, and probably gained some support in Quebec too.
W&W- Get fightin' ! They already have extra status within Canada - control over their own language laws, and also (I believe) more responsibilities than the other provinces when it comes to immigration.

It remains to be seen if this gesture will result in anything substantive happening, though.

I wonder how angry Harper supporters have to get before they look for alternatives.

Michael Hardner · November 23, 2006

I wonder how angry Harper supporters have to get before they look for alternatives.

JD - You mean until they form another party to split the vote ? I wonder that too.

jdobbin · November 23, 2006

JD - You mean until they form another party to split the vote ? I wonder that too.

I know they aren't about to vote for Liberals but I know several Conservatives here that are sort of pissed at the Tories and the one thing they said to me was that Harper better not give the barn to Quebec.

I don't know that he has done this here but these people are fairly sensitive to this type of announcement.

Cameron · November 23, 2006

From the article:

However, at least one Liberal, Jim Karygiannis, said he would oppose it.
"Are we going to have a Greek nation within Canada, a Ukrainian nation within Canada, a Chinese nation within Canada? Sorry, Canada is the nation," Karygiannis asked.

Good point. I fear that Harper is trying to be everybody to everyone. If I were in charge, I'd just tell Quebec that if they want to separate from Canada, Canada will separate from them. No more money, military protection, etc. In my hypothetical world, I would like to just cut them off, let them bleed for a couple of years and then welcome them back with a new treaty. And laugh all the way to the bank.

Quebec is a pain in the ass.

And, on top of that, their home country, France, is a joke right now.

geoffrey · November 23, 2006

It's time for Harper to go bye bye. More pandering to Quebec isn't going to win him the election.

Where is Alberta's recognition? What about Manitoba's?!?! HOW ABOUT THE YUKONS!!?!

Someone please think of the poor Yukonese children that will grow up, always wishing they had a nation.

Harper just agreed with those in Quebec who think they are holier than thou. Too bad. Let the Reform movement begin again. Whether it's Mulroney or Harper, you just can't trust these boys with their selling out to Quebec.

Harper's decision to highlight the differences really is a throwback to the Trudeauism of this multicultural garbage. Instead of having a united country, these people want to see two nations inside one?! What's the point.

Like Cameron pointed out, now we really have to recongize everyone, and that sounds like a costly big waste of time.

Either Quebecois are Canadian, or they aren't. No special treatment based on language or ethnicity. Such bullshit.

August1991 · November 23, 2006

My two cents.

There are several ways to look at this. Why is Harper doing this now? (It looks like a way to blindside the BQ.) What effect will this have on the Liberal leadership race? (It gets Ignatieff out of a pickle.) What will this do to the Tories' support? (Help in Quebec and elsewhere. I don't see the anti-Quebec Tory vote bleeding to the Liberals/NDP.)

What does the proposal mean exactly? Dunno. Didn't the House vote on a motion declaring Quebec a "distinct society" about 10 years ago? Well, the House can pass a motion declaring sliced bread the greatest invention ever. So what?

For myself, Quebec is obviously not a province like the others but I'll be damned if I know how or whether that fact should be included in the Constitution - assuming of course that Quebec remains a Canadian province.

jdobbin · November 23, 2006

My two cents.
There are several ways to look at this. Why is Harper doing this now? (It looks like a way to blindside the BQ.) What effect will this have on the Liberal leadership race? (It gets Ignatieff out of a pickle.) What will this do to the Tories' support? (Help in Quebec and elsewhere. I don't see the anti-Quebec Tory vote bleeding to the Liberals/NDP.)

What does the proposal mean exactly? Dunno. Didn't the House vote on a motion declaring Quebec a "distinct society" about 10 years ago? Well, the House can pass a motion declaring sliced bread the greatest invention ever. So what?

For myself, Quebec is obviously not a province like the others but I'll be damned if I know how or whether that fact should be included in the Constitution - assuming of course that Quebec remains a Canadian province.

Tory support doesn't have to bleed anywhere. Voters might just not turn out next election. We'll see how this plays to the base. When Tories get pissed, they either start new parties or stay away from the polls.

We'll also see if Charest feels pressure after a Quebec election to put pressure on the federal government to re-open the Constitution.

August1991 · November 23, 2006

Here's Harper's statement:

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the Bloc Quebecois will present the House with an unusual request that we here at the federal Parliament define the Quebecois nation.
As a consequence, with the support of the government and with the support of our party, I will be putting on the Notice Paper later today the following motion. . .

That this House recognize that the Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada. . .

Once again, the leader of the Bloc and his separatist friends are not concerned with defining who Quebecers are but rather what they want them to become, a separate country.

The separatists do not need the Parliament of Canada to define what is meant by the sociological termination. My preference has been well known. I believe that this is not the job of the federal Parliament. It is the job of the legislature of Quebec, but the Bloc Quebecois has asked us to define this and perhaps that is a good thing, because it reminds us that all Canadians have a say in the future of this country.

Having been asked by the Bloc to define the Quebecois, we must take a position. Our position is clear. Do the Quebecois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Quebecois form an independent nation? The answer is no, and the answer will always be no, because Quebecers of all political persuasions, from Cartier and Laurier to Mulroney and Trudeau, have led this country, and millions like them of all political persuasions have helped to build it.

With their English- and French-speaking fellow citizens, and people drawn from all nationalities of this earth, they have been part of making this country what it is, the greatest country in the world.

To millions more who live in a dangerous and dividing world, this country is a shining example of the harmony and unity to which all peoples are capable and to which all humanity should aspire.

I say to my federalist colleagues and I also say to the separatist side that we here will do what we must, what our forefathers have always done to preserve this country, Canada, strong, united, independent and free.

Toronto Star

This is an English-Canadian speaking to Quebec and I think Harper has done this well. I have highlighted three points.

First, he's respecting the authority of the National Assembly. Second, all Canadians have a say in Quebec's status. Third, he's going to defend vigourously his point of view.

geoffrey · November 23, 2006

The National Assembly has no authority in Federal matters. How'd you like if Harper bowed to the wisdom and authority of the Alberta legislature?

Why the special treatment? This nearing the hypocracy of the Indians and their rights.

Riverwind · November 23, 2006

This is an English-Canadian speaking to Quebec and I think Harper has done this well. I have highlighted three points.

August, Harper used the term 'Quebecois' rather than 'Quebec'. I see this distinction as very important because the the term Quebecois clearly describes a group of people rather than a specific geographic region.

normanchateau · November 23, 2006

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/quebec_nation
Bombshell dropped in Parliament.

Lots of people have criticized Ignatieff about this. So is it a good idea now that Harper says so?

Ignatieff was rightly criticized for proposing this idea. Today Ignatieff was proclaiming to the press that Harper got the idea from him. I don't think so. Harper has long had this nation-within-a-nation perspective. Who can forget Harper suggesting two years ago that Canada should adopt Belgium's trilateral style of federalism. For those who have forgotten, see the following:

http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/columni...108_91853_91853

Maybe Ignatieff stole the idea from Harper two years ago...

jdobbin · November 23, 2006

Ignatieff was rightly criticized for proposing this idea. Today Ignatieff was proclaiming to the press that Harper got the idea from him. I don't think so. Harper has long had this nation-within-a-nation perspective. Who can forget Harper suggesting two years ago that Canada should adopt Belgium's trilateral style of federalism. For those who have forgotten, see the following:
http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/columni...108_91853_91853

Maybe Ignatieff stole the idea from Harper two years ago...

I certainly don't know if is a good idea if it opens up the country to a prolonged constitutional debate.

gerryhatrick · November 23, 2006

His biographer, Paul Wells, sounds pretty unimpressed by it all.

normanchateau · November 23, 2006

Ignatieff was rightly criticized for proposing this idea. Today Ignatieff was proclaiming to the press that Harper got the idea from him. I don't think so. Harper has long had this nation-within-a-nation perspective. Who can forget Harper suggesting two years ago that Canada should adopt Belgium's trilateral style of federalism. For those who have forgotten, see the following:

http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/columni...108_91853_91853

Maybe Ignatieff stole the idea from Harper two years ago...

I certainly don't know if is a good idea if it opens up the country to a prolonged constitutional debate.

That's exactly why Harper supporters condemned the idea when they thought it was Ignatieff's idea.

But Harper's had this idea since his Belgian days at least.