Quebec: A Nation

[August1991]

The fear in the west is that everyone will have to learn how to use left handed scissors to get a job and that left handed people will have to be hired even in areas where everyone is right handed. The fear as well is that if you recognize left handedness as distinct that the left handed people will want to ensure more rights for themselves to the detriment of right handed people. Also, the left handed people might want to break up the family simply because they think no one understands their left handedness.

In large part, Trudeau started that fear with his bilingual Canada.

Harper has often said that Canada has two official languages but it's not a bilingual country. The vast majority of French-speakers are in Quebec with some close to the Quebec border in Ontario and New Brunswick. To live and function in these areas requires as a minimum a working knowledge of French just as a working knowledge of English is required to lead a reasonably normal life elsewhere in Canada.

Moreover, the Quebec government is the only government that represents without compromise French-speakers.

I'm not certain how or even whether we should put these obvious facts into a federal Constitution but it seems to me the practical nature of the country should determine its institutions and not the other way around.

In simple terms, it's crazy to sell left-handed scissors in places where there are no left-handed people.

I agree with you that Quebec is not province like the others. If we said that then you'd have to be fine with saying Nfld is a province unlike others, urban and rural Canada are different, western Canada is not like Eastern Canada...

I happen to know Newfoundland quite well and I feel safe in saying that Quebec is more different than Newfoundland. More pertinently, Quebec is the only government "controlled" by French-speaking North Americans. It seems to me that any Constitutional difference would stem from that fact.

But a good federal system should be able to cope with the particularities of different regions without having to resort to varied classifications and definitions.

----

IMV, about 20% of the Quebec population are die-hard separatists who often simply hate the English. They view independance as revenge, pure and simple. There are another 20% who are in favour of Quebec independance for a whole host of reasons but are pragmatic about teh question and want to maintain ties with Canada. There are the 20% of anglophones/allophones who are federalists and another 20% of francophones who are federalists. That leaves a final 20% who are proud Quebecers but also have a profound attachment to Canada.

These are really rough numbers but Harper has just made this last group of francophone Quebecers comfortable being Canadian. Harper's not appeasing anyone because this is not a game played against a strategic thinking dictator. Harper (in fact English Canada) is dealing with several million people each with very different opinions.

[jdobbin]

These are really rough numbers but Harper has just made this last group of francophone Quebecers comfortable being Canadian. Harper's not appeasing anyone because this is not a game played against a strategic thinking dictator. Harper (in fact English Canada) is dealing with several million people each with very different opinions.

If nothing comes of this recognition, it will have been a brilliant strategy. If it becomes a dominating election issue then we'll know where it started from.

[August1991]

If nothing comes of this recognition, it will have been a brilliant strategy. If it becomes a dominating election issue then we'll know where it started from.

Dobbin, the more I think about this, the more I realize that Harper really had no other choice. He made the best he could of an otherwise bad situation.

I suspect that several of the 10 members of the Quebec Tory caucus would have voted for the BQ motion. On the eve of the Liberal convention, Tory divisions over the N-word would have dominated the news.

Harper's compromise is similar to what Dion wanted and hence it's an "inside the Beltway" (or is that, an "above the Glebe") solution.

So, I don't know if it's really a "brilliant strategy". It's more along the lines of making lemonade with life's lemons.

[August1991]

Kennedy is opposed to this motion:

Liberal leadership hopeful Gerard Kennedy has decided to buck the tide of political opinion, coming out against a parliamentary motion recognizing Quebecers as a nation within a united Canada.

The Canadian Press has learned that Kennedy will issue a statement Monday opposing the motion, just as the House of Commons prepares to debate the surprise resolution introduced by Prime Minister Stephen Harper last week.

In so doing, Kennedy will become the only Liberal leadership contender to reject the motion, which has been embraced with varying degrees of unease by his seven rival candidates, Harper's Conservatives, most Liberal MPs and the New Democrats. Even the separatist Bloc Quebecois has come on side.

A senior Kennedy source said the third-place contender believes the motion is irresponsible and wrong for Canada.

Canoe

This means the motion will divide the convention and Kennedy will likely pick up some support from the Kinsella Liberal types. I note too that Trudeau Jnr has decided to support Kennedy.

[geoffrey]

Kennedy is opposed to this motion

This means the motion will divide the convention and Kennedy will likely pick up some support from the Kinsella Liberal types. I note too that Trudeau Jnr has decided to support Kennedy.

My boy has momentum, unfortunately there is a Trudeau involved...

[August1991]

I agree with Chantal Hebert:

There is not one federalist leader on Parliament Hill and in the National Assembly who will not find it easier to make the case for Canada in Quebec on the strength of this motion.

Its adoption also makes the possibility of another referendum more remote, even if the Parti Québécois comes to power after the upcoming provincial election.

And it is the result of a gross miscalculation on Duceppe's part.

When the Bloc decided to bring the issue of Quebec's national character to the floor of the Commons last week, it fully expected to wreak havoc in federalist ranks.

In his worst nightmares, Duceppe never imagined that the Prime Minister would pick up the gauntlet or that the other parties would rally behind him.

Now, it looks like the Bloc has squandered a key argument in the long battle for the hearts and souls of Quebecers in a failed attempt to score cheap political points.

In the process, it has also legitimized the notion that the rest of Canada has a say in the definition of Quebec's political character.

....

In the post-Cold War era, the concept that a people can form a nation without requiring all the attributes of a state, and the accompanying one that different nations should be able to live together under the same political roof, have emerged as compelling elements of an alternative model to a world fragmented along narrow ethnic lines.

Spain, which has recently extended national recognition to Catalonia, is finding that it has taken the steam out of that province's secessionist movement, enhancing its own national integrity in the process.

Hebert's right about the effect this will have in Quebec. (She fails to note - although it supports her argument - that Bernard Landry is now defending his decision to push for the use of the word 'nation'. Landry's defence is an implicit admission that he may have made a strategic blunder if the goal was to achieve sovereignty.)

Hebert's also right about how Canadian federalism could possibly evolve in the future.

For the moment however, Harper's motion is merely a motion that will have the support of the leadership of all parties in the House of Commons.

[August1991]

266 - Yea, 16 - Nay, 24 - Absent.

These are the 16 nays:

Joe Comuzzi (Lib-Thunder Bay Superior North)

Diane Marleau (Lib-Sudbury)

Maria Minna (Lib-Beaches East York)

Joseph Volpe (Lib-Eglinton Lawrence)

Raymond Chan (Lib-Richmond)

Jim Karygiannis (Lib-Scarborough Agincourt)

Hedy Fry (Lib-Vancouver Centre)

Dan McTeague (Lib-Pickering Scarborough East)

Bill Matthews (Lib-Random Burin St. George's)

Ken Dryden (Lib-York Centre)

Paul Steckle (Lib-Huron Bruce)

Andrew Telegdi (Lib-Kitchener Waterloo)

Navdeep Bains (Lib-Mississauga Brampton South)

Don H. Bell (Lib-North Vancouver)

Scott Simms (Lib-Bonavista Gander Grand Falls Windsor)

Garth Turner (Ind-Halton)

Paul Martin showed up to vote in favour.

Among those who didn't vote:

National Revenue Minister Carol Skelton

Justice Minister Vic Toews

Michael Chong

Art Hanger (Alberta)

Inky Mark (Manitoba)

Betty Hinton (BC) parliamentary secretary to the veterans affairs minister

[cybercoma]

I seem to be missing the point, I think. What exactly is the purpose of all this? Maybe I'm just 'too dumb' to get it, but I don't understand the significance of recognizing Quebec as a nation and what it means for the rest of Canada. I don't understand why our Federal Government's valuable time needs to be squandered on this.

Would someone be willing to dumb it down for me?

[blueblood]

266 - Yea, 16 - Nay, 24 - Absent.

These are the 16 nays:

Joe Comuzzi (Lib-Thunder Bay Superior North)

Diane Marleau (Lib-Sudbury)

Maria Minna (Lib-Beaches East York)

Joseph Volpe (Lib-Eglinton Lawrence)

Raymond Chan (Lib-Richmond)

Jim Karygiannis (Lib-Scarborough Agincourt)

Hedy Fry (Lib-Vancouver Centre)

Dan McTeague (Lib-Pickering Scarborough East)

Bill Matthews (Lib-Random Burin St. George's)

Ken Dryden (Lib-York Centre)

Paul Steckle (Lib-Huron Bruce)

Andrew Telegdi (Lib-Kitchener Waterloo)

Navdeep Bains (Lib-Mississauga Brampton South)

Don H. Bell (Lib-North Vancouver)

Scott Simms (Lib-Bonavista Gander Grand Falls Windsor)

Garth Turner (Ind-Halton)

Paul Martin showed up to vote in favour.

Among those who didn't vote:

National Revenue Minister Carol Skelton

Justice Minister Vic Toews

Michael Chong

Art Hanger (Alberta)

Inky Mark (Manitoba)

Betty Hinton (BC) parliamentary secretary to the veterans affairs minister

That's number 2 red flag old Inky didn't vote for, my riding must be hoored off at the french

[jdobbin]

The motion states: "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."

Are Québécois only French? The government seems to think so.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/11/27/nation-vote.html

[August1991]

I seem to be missing the point, I think. What exactly is the purpose of all this? Maybe I'm just 'too dumb' to get it, but I don't understand the significance of recognizing Quebec as a nation and what it means for the rest of Canada. I don't understand why our Federal Government's valuable time needs to be squandered on this.

The BQ was about to use one of its supply days in the House to present a motion declaring les Québécois to be a nation. This would have embarrassed the Liberals and Tories and NDP since some of them may or may not have voted in favour. Notably, the Tory caucus could have split. This forced Harper's hand.

Harper then worked out a wording with Dion that threw the whole thing back in Duceppe's face. (A cartoon in Quebec showed Duceppe looking down a garden hose trying to figure out why there was no water - and then Harper standing with his foot on the hose about to release it.)

Harper used Duceppe's wording but added the key phrase "... within a united Canada." In addition, Harper noted in his remarks introducing the motion that all Canadians were implicated in how Quebecers define themselves.

So much for the tactics.

Let me try and translate this into English Canadian. Bill Clinton was always mindful to state that he respected the sovereignty of Canada and he did not want to interfere in domestic Canadian politics. English Canadians took this as a sign of goodwill. It's the equivalent of bowing when you meet someone from Japan. Meaningless to us but important for them.

[jdobbin]

Let me try and translate this into English Canadian. Bill Clinton was always mindful to state that he respected the sovereignty of Canada and he did not want to interfere in domestic Canadian politics. English Canadians took this as a sign of goodwill. It's the equivalent of bowing when you meet someone from Japan. Meaningless to us but important for them.

The way the bill is phrased and the way the government introduced seems to indicate that non-French people don't qualify as a nation in Quebec. Nor do recent immigrants who are French speaking.

Nice bill.

Even in Japan, it is possible to become Japanese over time.

[August1991]

The motion states: "That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada."

Are Québécois only French. The government seems to think so.

Uh, yeah. I think so. Sort of, maybe.

Paul Wells has posted the text of the press conference with Lawrence Cannon:

Question: Can you — to follow up on Hélène's question, just to make it very, very clear, especially to my readers at The Gazette, when you talk about les Québécois does it include every resident of Quebec regardless of which boat their ancestors came over on?

Hon. Lawrence Cannon: No, it doesn't. It doesn't. Let's be clear on this. Four hundred years ago, four hundred years ago when Champlain stepped off and onto the shores in Quebec City he of course spoke about les Canadiens. Then as the debate went on on parlait des Canadiens français. Et au Québec on parle des Québécois maintenant qui occupent cette terre-là, Amérique. Il est fort possible — non seulement il est fort possible, il est tout à fait évident qu'il y ait des Canadiens français qui demeurent à l'extérieur du Québec, qui demeurent en Ontario, qui demeurent au Nouveau-Brunswick, qui demeurent partout au pays. Et donc dans ce sens-là nous on a répliqué à la motion que le Bloc québécois a mise de l'avant, une motion qui a dit singulièrement les Québécois et les Québécoises forment une nation. On dit, oui, ils forment une nation et à deux reprises, plus à quatre occasions, à l'occasion d'élections ils ont manifesté leur attachement au Canada. Ce soir, cette résolution-là, après 40 ans, est en train de reconnaître les décisions qui ont été entérinées à plusieurs occasions par des Québécois et des Québécoises de dire nous on fait partie du Canada. Nous on continue de construire le Canada. Et c'est ce que cette résolution-là formellement dit ce soir.

...

L'hon. Lawrence Cannon: Non, non, mais pas — et moi aussi parce que ma famille est débarquée en 1795. Est-ce que je me considère comme étant un Québécois? Oui, je me considère comme étant un Québécois et ceux qui se considèrent comme étant des Québécois ils peuvent bien le porter. Mais je ne pense pas qu'il y ait question de forcer quelqu'un qui ne se sent pas comme étant un Québécois qui doit être nécessairement lié à cette chose-là et ça c'est le dilemme dans lequel le Bloc québécois s'est toujours trouvé.

First, this is only a motion in the House. This is not a constitutional amendment. (Chretien passed a motion recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. Under Mulroney, Parliament approved a formal constitutional amendment stating as much if not more.)

Second, Harper was clearly trying to use the same terminology as the BQ. The purpose of the exercice is to co-opt the PQ/BQ's language. The motion states that it is possible to be Québécois, identify with the Quebecois nation but also be part of a united Canada. The BQ/PQ (Landry in particular) try to argue that that is impossible.

Third, I think (?) Cannon is trying to say that the term "French Canadian nation" is outdated and now people would refer to the "Québécois nation". Such a nation is not exclusive but rather includes anyone who identifies with it.

[blueblood]

I seem to be missing the point, I think. What exactly is the purpose of all this? Maybe I'm just 'too dumb' to get it, but I don't understand the significance of recognizing Quebec as a nation and what it means for the rest of Canada. I don't understand why our Federal Government's valuable time needs to be squandered on this.

The BQ was about to use one of its supply days in the House to present a motion declaring les Québécois to be a nation. This would have embarrassed the Liberals and Tories and NDP since some of them may or may not have voted in favour. Notably, the Tory caucus could have split. This forced Harper's hand.

Harper then worked out a wording with Dion that threw the whole thing back in Duceppe's face. (A cartoon in Quebec showed Duceppe looking down a garden hose trying to figure out why there was no water - and then Harper standing with his foot on the hose about to release it.)

Harper used Duceppe's wording but added the key phrase "... within a united Canada." In addition, Harper noted in his remarks introducing the motion that all Canadians were implicated in how Quebecers define themselves.

So much for the tactics.

Let me try and translate this into English Canadian. Bill Clinton was always mindful to state that he respected the sovereignty of Canada and he did not want to interfere in domestic Canadian politics. English Canadians took this as a sign of goodwill. It's the equivalent of bowing when you meet someone from Japan. Meaningless to us but important for them.

What I don't understand is that you acknowledge that the groups of people in different areas of Canada are unique to the point of Canada being ungovernable, but you are stressing that parliament should recognize Quebec as a nation etc and not the others. The problem that I and maybe others have is that we already know Quebec is different, we don't care, go fly a kite and lets get on with business, but when it's being rubbed in our face you can bet your ass it's going to piss us off, look at it this way when I go to the city for parts or whatever else, I get stared at I have my dirty ass diesel with so much junk in the box, I wear my oil stained hat and work boots all the time and have permanent stubble -> people know i'm different, if I were to make exclamations and demands like those in Quebec do, people are gonna get pissed off.

I believe that now Quebec is recognized as a nation, all the other groups should be recognized in parliament too, it's only fair as long as its only symbolic.

[jdobbin]

Third, I think (?) Cannon is trying to say that the term "French Canadian nation" is outdated and now people would refer to the "Québécois nation". Such a nation is not exclusive but rather includes anyone who identifies with it.

Really? I can't tell what it all means other than it was not the best news conference I've ever seen. I could have sworn they meant that only Bernand Landry types were Quebecers and the rest were immigrants and the Anglos.

[August1991]

Really? I can't tell what it all means other than it was not the best news conference I've ever seen. I could have sworn they meant that only Bernand Landry types were Quebecers and the rest were immigrants and the Anglos.

Despite Parizerau's ethnic remark in 1995 and Landry's own diatribe against a Spanish-speaking hotel employee, the PQ has been at pains to invite non-Quebecois de souche into its fold. There is a Camerounian-born MP who sits in the House as a BQ member. Levesque had two anglophones in his cabinet and was proud that an anglophone Liberal cabinet minister voted yes in 1980.

Landry has tried to argue that an open Quebecois nation, French-speaking, based on Quebec culture cannot exist within Canada. (Let me compare. There is a Swedish nation, open to immigration, based on the Swedish language, culture and history. Immigrants assimilate into this Swedish nation.)

Cannon and Harper are saying that's fine and such a Quebecois nation exists and it can do so perfectly well within a united Canada.

The problem that I and maybe others have is that we already know Quebec is different, we don't care, go fly a kite and lets get on with business, but when it's being rubbed in our face you can bet your ass it's going to piss us off, look at it this way when I go to the city for parts or whatever else, I get stared at I have my dirty ass diesel with so much junk in the box, I wear my oil stained hat and work boots all the time and have permanent stubble -> people know i'm different, if I were to make exclamations and demands like those in Quebec do, people are gonna get pissed off.

That's not a bad comparison except it's a little more serious than stubble and oil stains. Harper made it plain that he didn't start this dance. But he had to respond.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

(Let me compare. There is a Swedish nation, open to immigration, based on the Swedish language, culture and history. Immigrants assimilate into this Swedish nation.)

I think a better comparison might substitute 'Amish' for 'Swedish'. Not that the Quebecois have more in common with the Amish than Swedes, but rather an 'distinct identifiable culture' instead of an enclave of ex-pats.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Once defeated by the British the French were made promises of being able to keep their language, their religion and their culture. Sounds pretty distinct to me. Sounds like a unique society within a greater nation. This is what was offered and that is what was accepted. No assimilation, no integration, merely a method of peaceful resolve without either the British or the French having to give up their homes and their lives in Canada. That once original and elegant solution is now haunting the new combined nation. Oh well, so much for peaceful solutions.

Canada is the heart and soul of a multicultural concept because of the efforts of those two groups of people. The legacy we have been living with should have been respected and embraced , unfortunately there have been problems from day one.

[Charles Anthony]

I think a better comparison might substitute 'Amish' for 'Swedish'. Not that the Quebecois have more in common with the Amish than Swedes, but rather an 'distinct identifiable culture' instead of an enclave of ex-pats.

Kudos, ThelOne, kudos. I think that is the most perfect analogy.

With that analogy, if rest-of-Canadians can not understand the sense of Harper's motion, they will never understand.

The problem that I and maybe others have is that we already know Quebec is different, we don't care, go fly a kite and lets get on with business, but when it's being rubbed in our face

You are misunderstanding the intent of the motion.

The motion says exactly what you want. Harper is forcing the separatists in the House of Commons to shut up and get on with business. The motion actually rubs it into the faces of the separatists.

Now, the separatists can never play the emotional card pitting rest-of-Canadians against the Quebecois. Furthermore, by concurrently advancing more decentralization and more powers to ALL of the provinces, the separatists have less reason to demand separatism.

Canada is the heart and soul of a multicultural concept because of the efforts of those two groups of people. The legacy we have been living with should have been respected and embraced , unfortunately there have been problems from day one.

I agree. Canadians should respect and embrace this legacy.

What a lot of rest-of-Canadians do not realize is that the British had no practical choice years ago. The British needed the conquered French as allies in North America. Remember, the British were losing their colony to the new U.S.A. down to the South.

Politically, I am actually starting to get excited as a Canadian. We may be taking a few more baby steps along the evolution towards a federation that may rival the U.S.A. in terms of political freedom. We have that opportunity -- something I never thought was possible. I honestly picture us as being too hard-headed. My fellow rest-of-Canadians, consider this: our continued decentralization is happening when our federal government has absolutely no federal purpose nor clout -- other than central banking, the one thing it can do right and certainly better than our neighbors to the South.

[blueblood]

You are misunderstanding the intent of the motion.

The motion says exactly what you want. Harper is forcing the separatists in the House of Commons to shut up and get on with business. The motion actually rubs it into the faces of the separatists.

Now, the separatists can never play the emotional card pitting rest-of-Canadians against the Quebecois. Furthermore, by concurrently advancing more decentralization and more powers to ALL of the provinces, the separatists have less reason to demand separatism.

I have no problem with the motion, I have a problem of WHY there was a motion and the fact it is bogging down parliament and our Country

[Charles Anthony]

I have no problem with the motion, I have a problem of WHY there was a motion and the fact it is bogging down parliament and our Country

Bogging down parliament?

What would you recommend be done when the Bloc put forth its motion?

[scribblet]

I have no problem with the motion, I have a problem of WHY there was a motion and the fact it is bogging down parliament and our Country

Bogging down parliament?

What would you recommend be done when the Bloc put forth its motion?

Roll over and play dead?

Take a look at Rick Mercer's blog.. http://rickmercer.blogspot.com/ Pawn to King Four

Well you got to hand it to Stephen Harper the man is on a roll.

The Tories love to say he’s great at his job because he is, above all, a chess player.

[Charles Anthony]

Pawn to King Four

What an original analogy!!

I called this whole debacle a chess-match earlier.

It was fast thinking.

--SNIP--

This is just a chess-match between the Harper government and the separatists -- unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how big you like your government), one which only parliamentarians can truly understand.

Maybe it is just a co-incidence.....

[scribblet]

Maybe he read your post LOL

What actually has been done is given the Quebecois people recognition as one of the two founding people groups when Canada was created. The notion that this gives the Province of Quebec increased governance is misleading.

The other founding group is the people of British background and I suppose this group does receive recognition on our money and parliamentary system etc.

Maybe this one motion (no powers, no const. change) to recognize the Quebecois, wherever they live in Canada, is not too much.

If I remember correctly wasn't Quebecois coined by Bouchard who was trying todraw a distinction between the French in Quebec, the English in Quebec, the French and English outside Quebec. Done with the intention of separating Quebec and setting bar bar for separation.

The real issue would be if Province of Quebec starts enacting new laws with which to distinguish the French people more then the english people in Quebec, thus eventually driving out the non Quebecois, giving themselves a majority in the next referendum.

[blueblood]

I have no problem with the motion, I have a problem of WHY there was a motion and the fact it is bogging down parliament and our Country

Bogging down parliament?

What would you recommend be done when the Bloc put forth its motion?

Instead of debating something as trivial as this, we could be debating something more important hense bogging down. I'd honestly have to say what harper done was the fastest way out.

Why does the Bloc feel its so important to put forth this motion in the first place? Yah quebec is different, the rest of Canada knows it and recognizes it, so why does parliament need to devote so much time to something as trivial as that. This is approaching arrogance by Quebec, how about they recognize Rural Western Canada as a nation then or Newfoundland, we're different but you don't see us making a big stink about it.

The real issue would be if Province of Quebec starts enacting new laws with which to distinguish the French people more then the english people in Quebec, thus eventually driving out the non Quebecois, giving themselves a majority in the next referendum.

Already have, Bill 101 anybody? Or as I call it the totalitarian language law, good grief it had to go to the UN to be watered down.