Quebec: A Nation

[August1991]

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.

I guess you're right Riverwind but this is why I hate these kinds of debates. Distinction upon distinction.

The original BQ motion referred to "Québécoises et Québécois" so Harper seems to have adopted the same. Presumably Quebecois refers to the people living in Quebec. Quebec could refer to the geographic entity or the Quebec government. Anyway...

Two more points.

Harper has astuciously split the PQ/BQ's support by this motion and by using the term separatist. The purs et durs are of course (angrily) against Harper's motion but others are in favour. It's the "... in a united Canada." that provokes the ire.

Apparently, Harper has adopted what in effect is the policy of the Quebec Liberal Party. I'm sure Harper spoke to both Charest and Mulroney about this beforehand (as well as with his own Quebec caucus). He's been well advised but this is an English-Canadian speaking.

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?

In a federal system, each level of government must be sovereign.

Harper was reminding the BQ that in his opinion, it was for the "legislature" of Quebec to declare what Quebecers are but since the BQ presented the motion in the federal House, Harper said he'd use the occasion to remind everyone that all Canadians are concerned too.

[hiti]

This is just the start of what we can look forward to under Harper's Belgium model.

'' BELGIUM: Parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarch.

Under the 1994 constitution, autonomy was granted to the Walloon region (Wallonia), the Flemish region (Flanders), and the bilingual Brussels-Capital region; autonomy was also guaranteed for the Flemish-, French-, and German-speaking “communities.” The central government retains responsibility for foreign policy, defense, taxation, and social security.''

( SOURCE: © 2000–2005 Pearson Education, publishing as Infoplease) http://www.infoplease.com/pages/copyright.html

Harper just glibly suggested that Canada might adopt the Belgium model of federal government; that he would give more powers to the provinces/territories, and reduce the role of the federal government, without spelling out the details. His hidden agenda are in the details.

Here are some of the details: Harper supports an elected SENATE highly influenced by the provinces. An elected Senate would trump the primary parliamentary function and responsibilities of the House of Commons -- just as it does the House of R. in the USA.

You would be paying very large salaries to Harper and his caucus for doing little work-- (remember when Harper and his neo-con caucus refused to show-up in the H or C for one of the readings of Goodale's finance bill?, or when they refused to show up for work in committees? and when Stockwell Day suggested that the H of C should shut down from Thursdays through Mondays? -- and for their vastly reduced responsibilities --four in total, ''a la Harper's Belgium model,'' expressed some months ago: (1) foreign policy, (2) defence; and Harper and his western group would only (3) collect your taxes to build up and maintain the Armed forces (to help George Bush); and his ''soc-con'' policies would probably make it very difficult for you to get (4) social security benefits (Harper and the ''soc-cons'' are promising you reduced taxes, but they don't tell you ( hidden agenda) that if they let you keep more in your pocket to spend, then you are going to have to look after yourself and families by paying much more than you are allowed to keep, for ALL the services and health benefits that you may/will need.

The federal civil service would be drastically reduced since ALL other federal government services but these four areas, would be handed over to the provinces. Imagine Canadians having NO federal department of Justice, no Supreme Court of Canada (the SCC would be useless since each autonomous province would be administering and pronouncing on its own laws), of health, of immigration, of employment/unemployment insurance, of fisheries, of agriculture, of human resources, of public works, of communications and transportation, of language, culture/Arts and bilingualism, of security, RCMP, and CISIS; and all the other federal departments now in existence!!

Just remember what's behind the fake smile, the nice guy, the smoothe, it's-okay-to-trust-me image. Just recall the Harris ''common-nonsense Revolution, and the anguished legacy that that government left for Ontarians. Recall the Harris-Manning 'think-tank' report on Canada's health system, as opposed to the Romanov report!! And now their latest report on cutting taxes, etc, etc.

This latest move was the stupidest motion that ever came before the House in it's whole history.

"I can understand Quebec's nationalistic policy which, like all nationalistic policies, has to lead to independence . I can understand this feeling, but I cannot share it. " -Stephen Harper, December 8 1994 House of Commons

"The real question is straightforward. Do Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada? The answer is yes." -Stephen Harper, November 22, 2006 House of Commons

Recognizing Quebec as a Nation will be " beneficial to all Canadians because it will prepare said Canadians for the next natural step: the independence of Québec. " -Former Separatist Quebec Premier Bernard Landry , October 27 2006 - La Canal...

[normanchateau]

Harper's support of the nationhood of Quebec is consistent with another whacky Belgium-like idea he had a few years ago:

Alberta Agenda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Alberta Agenda is a loosely-organized political movement initiated by a letter written by prominent Albertans, including future federal Prime Minister Stephen Harper and 2006 Alberta PC leadership candidate Ted Morton, urging Albertan Premier Ralph Klein to fully exercise Alberta's constitutional powers. The letter was published by the National Post on January 27, 2001, in the wake of the Alberta-based Canadian Alliance's defeat in the 2000 Canadian federal election.

The letter has been referred to as the Firewall Letter from its use of the phrase "build firewalls around Alberta," a reference to the computer software programs which block unwanted intrusions from outside sources. Its main recommendations were:

* Allowing the province's contract with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to expire in 2012, establishing a provincial police force to take the RCMP's place. Alberta had a separate police force from 1917 until 1932.

* Withdrawal from the Canada Pension Plan and establishing a separate Alberta Pension Plan. Many Albertans believe that given the province's youthful demographics, staying in the CPP makes little sense since a separate "APP" would provide higher benefits for a lower premium.

* Separate collection of the province's income tax, as opposed to letting the Canada Revenue Agency handle tax collection. Alberta already collects its own corporate tax.

Klein personally responded to the letter, but rejected implementing the authors' requests for the duration of his premiership.

[Canadian Blue]

The reason for that plan was because it was believed that the Liberal's would be in power for the next 25 years. Pretty well every Alliance supporter was disheartened by the election results. As well I don't find anything particularly disturbing about the report, Harper has always supported the idea of giving more power to the provinces instead of Ottawa.

[normanchateau]

The reason for that plan was because it was believed that the Liberal's would be in power for the next 25 years.

As depressing a thought as it is to imagine the Harper Conservatives being in power for years, I'd still not want to build a firewall around British Columbia. This is the kind of nation-destroying pettiness we've come to expect from Quebec, not the rest of Canada. Klein's vision was greater and he was absolutely right to reject Harper's proposal.

[Fortunata]

Anything to get more votes; a majority. What a cockamamy idea from Harper. I knew politicians were opportunists, power hungry and out for personal self but I actually didn't think they were willing to start the ball rolling to break up this country to satisfy their own political gain.

[Canadian Blue]

Anything to get more votes; a majority. What a cockamamy idea from Harper. I knew politicians were opportunists, power hungry and out for personal self but I actually didn't think they were willing to start the ball rolling to break up this country to satisfy their own political gain.

Yeah, I'm sure the vast majority of MP's from the Liberal's, New Democrats, and Conservatives, have nothing in mind other then destroying the country by supporting this motion.

As depressing a thought as it is to imagine the Harper Conservatives being in power for years, I'd still not want to build a firewall around British Columbia. This is the kind of nation-destroying pettiness we've come to expect from Quebec, not the rest of Canada. Klein's vision was greater and he was absolutely right to reject Harper's proposal.

How does this destroy Canada? Would you prefer the Bloc proposal which made absolutely no mention of Quebec as a nation in a United Canada. This was done in reaction to that motion. If anything this strengthen's Canada, as Harper's position has been warmly greeted in most of the country, and by most MP's.

[theloniusfleabag]

A quote by Eugene Forsey...

"No one can deny that Quebec is, culturally and sociologically, a distinct society. So is Newfoundland."

Of course, years ago on 'This Hour has 22 minutes', some 'pundits' on a bit called "The Right Answer" has said, "Why wait for the referendum, start carpet bombing now!"

[Charles Anthony]

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.

I would do that too.

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.

I would NOT do that. I would treat them as we treat our friendly neighbors to the South.

[scribblet]

"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?

The motion from the Bloc changed it, this is an attempt to circumvent the bloc motion and defuse a bad situation - to sieze the initiative as it where.

"Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no, and the answer will alway"

We should be focussing on strengthening a harmonious, co-operative and peaceful relationship with Quebec, keeping in mind the parallels with the relationship of Britain and Ireland. Personally I'm tired of pandering to Quebec, but if this puts the issue to rest, so be it, I can live with it.

Edited for spelling

[Technocrat]

"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?

The motion from the Bloc changed it, this is an attempt to circumvent the bloc motion and defuse a bad situation - to siece the initiative as it where.

"Do the Québécois form a nation within Canada? The answer is yes. Do the Québécois form an independent nation? The answer is no, and the answer will alway"

We should be focussing on strengthening a harmonious, co-operative and peaceful relationship with Quebec, keeping in mind the parallels with the relationship of Britain and Ireland. Personally I'm tired of pandering to Quebec, but if this puts the issue to rest, so be it, I can live with it.

The problem is i don't think it will ever be put to rest. An industry has built up in quebec selling the notion that they are somehow special and above the rest of us...

[kimmy]

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?

I don't like it, and I'm somewhat disappointed.

However, I'm not yet sure how much to read into this.

Back in the days of Meech, most people were willing to agree that Quebec was, indeed, a "distinct society"... that wasn't what made people mad... it was Quebec being given special legal powers and so-on.

We already refer to the aboriginals as "First Nations". And Quebec already calls its legislature the "National Assembly". Referring to a nation within Canada isn't that revolutionary. But what concerns me is whether officially calling them a nation carries legal consequences. Does it mean they send their own delegates to international meetings? Does it mean Andre Boisclair would be able to go to a United Nations court and request an end to the Canadian occupation of the nation of Quebec?

If this heads off a more sweeping BQ motion, then I guess I could grudgingly accept it.

But I'm leery that this carries unforeseen consequences.

-k

[normanchateau]

As depressing a thought as it is to imagine the Harper Conservatives being in power for years, I'd still not want to build a firewall around British Columbia. This is the kind of nation-destroying pettiness we've come to expect from Quebec, not the rest of Canada. Klein's vision was greater and he was absolutely right to reject Harper's proposal.

How does this destroy Canada? Would you prefer the Bloc proposal which made absolutely no mention of Quebec as a nation in a United Canada. This was done in reaction to that motion.

The nation-destroying pettiness I was referring to was Harper's proposal to build a "firewall" around Alberta.

[kimmy]

As depressing a thought as it is to imagine the Harper Conservatives being in power for years, I'd still not want to build a firewall around British Columbia. This is the kind of nation-destroying pettiness we've come to expect from Quebec, not the rest of Canada. Klein's vision was greater and he was absolutely right to reject Harper's proposal.

How does this destroy Canada? Would you prefer the Bloc proposal which made absolutely no mention of Quebec as a nation in a United Canada. This was done in reaction to that motion.

The nation-destroying pettiness I was referring to was Harper's proposal to build a "firewall" around Alberta.

The infamous "firewall letter" was a proposal that the province use powers and options that are available to all provinces, and are in fact being used by other provinces in Canada.

It's clear that Harper has long favored an approach where the Federales keep their hands out of provincial business, and provinces operate with considerable autonomy. This is a view that's popular in Alberta, but perhaps less so in some parts of the country. Many Ontarions seem to prefer the idea of more power being centralized in the federal government. Which might be fine for Ontario, since in large measure they set the course of the federal government's policies... but for people out in "the regions", centralized authority means that the levers of government have been moved beyond their grasp. Decentralized authority puts decision making power closer to the people who are affected by the decisions.

It's not yet evident whether this motion to recognize Quebec as a "nation within Canada" actually has implications beyond semantics. I am skeptical that it's related to Harper's preference for a decentralized model. In fact, it's somewhat the opposite... recognizing Quebec as distinct is somewhat contrary to the view that provinces have equal status, which has always been a fundamental principle of Alberta decentralist thought.

-k

[Big Blue Machine]

My opinion on Quebec is very simple and has and will always be the same.

Dear Quebec:

YOU ARE NOT A NATION! FACE IT! NOW GROW UP!

You are a province of Canada, and will always be one.

Reality hurts, doesn't it?

Just because you have alot of french people doesn't mean you are a nation, or any different than any of the other provinces in Canada. If you are a nation, why not Ontario or Alberta. Ontario has done more for confederation than you, so they deserve to be a nation more than you.

Stop being so snobby, you snobs.

Signed,

Kevin S. Smith

Opinion at Large

[Posit]

Well that might have BEEN you opinion but things change. It isn't up to you to decide who is a nation and who isn't. Harper just announced Quebec IS a nation. What that entails is yet to be seen. However, internationally it is probably sufficent to see Quebec starting to stand on its own feet.

China says Taiwan is a province of thiers and Taiwan says they are a nation. The UN recognizes Taiwan as a separate entity to China. Quebec may very well end up in the same boat......

The other possibility is that Quebec will be able to move forward with its "separation" given that it is now recognized as a "nation". That's one birds of two that need to take flight before total sovereignty becomes formal...

[Big Blue Machine]

Taiwan is a province of China.

[scribblet]

This adds a new twist, as the G & M put it: but the Tory move presents a quandary for Mr. Rae. If he supports Mr. Harper's motion, he'll lose a weapon to wield against Mr. Ignatieff, and perhaps in the eyes of some, appear to be accepting his rival's position. If he opposes it, it could raise fears that he would be outflanked in Quebec by the Tories.

Actually this is some pretty good politicking on Harper's part and has them all scrambling - cos now according to the Star, the Quebec Liberals, (with Ignatieff's backing) have pushed forward a resolution to have the convention recognize "the Quebec nation within Canada," and to "officialize this historical and social reality."

Gilles Duceppe is now trying wriggle around it, he wants now to amned his motion: declaring that Quebecers form a nation “that is currently within Canada.” This is a hoot, they are all tying themselves in knots over it and jockying for position.

[Charles Anthony]

Well that might have BEEN you opinion but things change. It isn't up to you to decide who is a nation and who isn't.

I agree.

Harper just announced Quebec IS a nation. What that entails is yet to be seen. However, internationally it is probably sufficent to see Quebec starting to stand on its own feet.

One has to ask: do we REALLY need our politicians enacting motions which effectively amount to nothing?

It's not yet evident whether this motion to recognize Quebec as a "nation within Canada" actually has implications beyond semantics.

I agree. That is probably all it is. However, why do we pay politicians to play games?

Is it not bizarre that we pay our federal politicians to grand-stand? He get better bang for our buck turning on the comedy network. Hell, I would even say the CBC is more useful!

Gilles Duceppe is now trying wriggle around it, he wants now to amned his motion: declaring that Quebecers form a nation “that is currently within Canada.” This is a hoot,

I do not think Duceppe should stoop so low as to even consider this stupid motion.

If I was Duceppe, I would be curt and rude with the federalists. I would stand up in the House and tell them all off -- in terms that are disallowed in the MLW forum rules.

[Topaz]

I still believe that Ignatieff back to Canada only to stir up trouble within Canada! The Bloc only speak for a small minority within Quebec and listening to them today, they seem to think ALL Quebecers feel the same way as them. The first mistake the government did was to give them searting rights within the government. They shouldn't have it because their only concern is for Quebec and by doing so, Quebec has more people representing the province, than the rest of the country!! Perhaps the parties should debate over IF the Bloc has a right to be seating in government, a government of Canada, which they don't really care about! The First Nation is a nation and yet they have no "First Nation" person to represent them as the The Bloc has seemed to have.

[Fortunata]

Yeah, I'm sure the vast majority of MP's from the Liberals, New Democrats, and Conservatives, have nothing in mind other then destroying the country by supporting this motion.

Canadian Blue, Iggy proposed it in order to get delegates in Quebec and then votes should he be the "chosen one". Lil Stevie pounced on the opportunity; he's looking for a majority. Others will back this as to not do so would be a vote against Quebec and that will never do come election time. It's great for them this time around but has anyone considered what future ramifications might be? No because by that time they probably will not still be in office. Strike 3025 for Iggy.

Actually this is some pretty good politicking on Harper's part

Yep, it's all about politics and to hell with what's right for this country's future.

[Charles Anthony]

The first mistake the government did was to give them searting rights within the government.

Rah! Rah! Rah! Three cheers for democracy! Hip! Hip! Hooray!!!

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coersion of the State!

They shouldn't have it because their only concern is for Quebec and by doing so,

If Canadians had one ounce of dignity, they would learn from the Bloc and elect more regional and provincial parties.

The Bloc Quebecois is the first party to bring common sense to the House of Commons.

[geoffrey]

Reform was an attempt CA, then they decided to try to be big tent.

[Riverwind]

China says Taiwan is a province of thiers and Taiwan says they are a nation. The UN recognizes Taiwan as a separate entity to China. Quebec may very well end up in the same boat......

The UN most definitely does not recognize Taiwan as a separate entity. This declaration may actually undermine Quebec's claim for independence because international law only recognizes the 'right of self determination' where a distinct minority group is not given reasonable autonomy with the existing state. Recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada demonstrates that Canada is bending over backwards to accommodate Quebec and that there is no real need for Quebec to become a separate nation. This, in turn, would make it easier for Canada to enforce the Clarity Act in a future referendum.

[Canadian Blue]

I still believe that Ignatieff back to Canada only to stir up trouble within Canada! The Bloc only speak for a small minority within Quebec and listening to them today, they seem to think ALL Quebecers feel the same way as them. The first mistake the government did was to give them searting rights within the government. They shouldn't have it because their only concern is for Quebec and by doing so, Quebec has more people representing the province, than the rest of the country!! Perhaps the parties should debate over IF the Bloc has a right to be seating in government, a government of Canada, which they don't really care about! The First Nation is a nation and yet they have no "First Nation" person to represent them as the The Bloc has seemed to have.

Why is the Bloc there, I don't know I think it has something to do with the fact that they won seat's in Quebec democratically. If Canada were to refuse the Bloc into parliament then seperation would most certainly be a reality.