Motion to recognize "Quebecers" a nation--any thoughts?

[BoMac]

I'm still trying to understand the implications of this myself. I need to see where this goes. I'd be interested in knowing anyone's opinion--Canadian or not.


PM declares Quebec nation 'within Canada'


TORONTO, Ontario (AP) -- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's stunning motion recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada has reignited a debate over the divisive issue, with some supporters cautiously viewing it as a bold political step while critics described it as a recipe for tearing apart the country.

Harper's comments in Parliament seemed to pre-empt a planned motion by the Bloc Quebecois that states the French-speaking province is a nation. The wording of that motion, however, does not include the words "within Canada," leaving federalists worried it could be misinterpreted.

Harper said the Bloc Quebecois motion was an "unusual request" that could lead to another referendum for Quebec independence.

"Do Quebecers form a nation within a united Canada? The answer is yes," Harper on Wednesday told a cheering House of Commons to numerous standing ovations. "Do Quebecers form an independent nation? The answer is no -- and it will always be no."

Newspaper editorials weighed in on the issue Thursday, with the liberal Toronto Star saying that Harper's "intervention" in the debate simply fuels it.

"The surprise bombshell that Harper dropped yesterday ... will never placate Quebec separatists, even as it potentially weakens Canada by handing them another argument the next time -- and there almost certainly will be a 'next time' -- they seek to break up this country," said the newspaper.

"Harper's unwise intervention in this debate promises to embolden separatists and create division and bitterness."

While Quebecers have twice voted down referendums seeking independence from Canada, the last one -- in 1995 -- was narrowly defeated, and separatists rumblings continue in the province.

The issue resurfaced when Michael Ignatieff, a front-runner for the Liberal Party leadership, said the French language, history and culture mark Quebecers as a separate people who should be recognized as a nation under the constitution.

The Quebec wing of the Liberals adopted a resolution last month recognizing Quebec as a nation "within Canada" and called for the creation of a task force to advise the next leader on how to make that status official.

Harper's motion, which will be debated later in the week, comes as his Tories languish in third place in Quebec polls, behind the Bloc Quebecois and the Liberals.

On the provincial government level, the response was guarded. Alberta Premier Ralph Klein dismissed Harper's announcement, saying he had no idea what the prime minister's motivation was and that it "might be politics."

"First of all it's not legislation," Klein said. "He can say what he wants to say, as I say what I want to say from time to time, and until it's legislation, there's no need to worry about it."

Manitoba Premier Gary Doer appeared to not be supportive of Harper's motion.

"To me Canada is one nation, one country," said Doer. "I understand Quebec is unique in terms of language, culture and law, but Canada is one country."

Some people in francophone communities on the Prairies said that they have always recognized Quebec as a distinct part of the country.

"Quebec is really the center of the francophonie in Canada, and I don't think there's any problem with that," said Daniel Boucher, president of the Societe Franco-Manitobaine.

"I think it's important for Canada to have a strong Quebec, and it's also important for Canada to have strong [francophone] communities outside Quebec."

The liberal Toronto Sun voiced a measure of caution, saying that Harper "made a brilliant political move" by putting forward the motion. "But whether it will be good for national unity is another matter."

"... Is this a backdoor way of recognizing Quebec as a 'distinct society?' If not, if it's merely a token gesture to make Quebecers 'feel good' about Canada, how will that help?" the editorial said.

"... Harper's move may make the Conservatives more popular in Quebec, for now. But it's long term consequences are unknown and therefore cause for major concern."

 

[CTU2fan]

I'm not sure I understand, is this going to change any sort of relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada, or is it just calling Quebec a nation in name only?

I've always wondered how the maritimes would be effected if Quebec were to ever be truly a separate nation.

 

[BoMac]

I'm not sure I understand, is this going to change any sort of relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada, or is it just calling Quebec a nation in name only?

I've always wondered how the maritimes would be effected if Quebec were to ever be truly a separate nation.

I don't think this will make much of a difference. I believe that this is in the sociological sense of the term and not political. There has to be a distinction made though. This is not calling Quebec a nation. This motion is calling "Quebecers a nation in a united Canada" and therein lies the difference.

This is purely symbolic. Historic in my view, but not legally binding. My question is: what does this mean? Are all Quebecers a nation? Or is this refering only to French-speaking Quebecois? What about anglophones and ethnic groups...where do they fit into the equation?

And yes, if Quebec would ever separate it would effectively break up the country because it would cut off the Maritimes from the rest of Canada.

 

[anitram]

I'm not sure I understand, is this going to change any sort of relationship between Quebec and the rest of Canada, or is it just calling Quebec a nation in name only?

It's political posturing.

 

[trevster2k]

^ I agree with anitram. Harper is doing whatever it takes to get the votes he needs from Quebec to form a majority government. All this does is possibly give some ammunition to the separatists and piss off his own base.

 

[BonosSaint]

Yeah, it kind of sounded like the classic political nonstatement that muddies the waters instead of clearing them. (sounded awfully familiar, lol).

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

^ I agree with anitram. Harper is doing whatever it takes to get the votes he needs from Quebec to form a majority government. All this does is possibly give some ammunition to the separatists and piss off his own base.

Sure, Harper is engaging in some political upmanship (over the Liberals and the Bloc) but this won't necessarily give more ammo to the separatists. Quebec has been after recognition for a long time now and at the end of the day, it might matter little who brought it up first - whether Ignatieff, Duceppe or Harpocrite himself. It's not as patronizing as Adscam that's for sure!
I guess we'll have a better idea how receptive people in Quebec are to this idea when the next polls come out....

It does worry me however that Charest apparently told the Assemble Generale in Quebec City that this motion will mean additional powers for Quebec. Maybe, maybe not.
But if it does, it will probably be part of Harper's more elaborate plan of decentralization for the entire country, and not just Quebec. Harper's been in favour of that for a long time now. Maybe this will get the ball rolling in that regards.
He certainly acts like a PM with a majority, doesn't he?

I do wish that none of this had been brought up in the first place though. Ignatieff didn't even live in Canada during the times we struggled with the debates on Meech Lake & Charlottetown so he has no idea how contentious the issue really became.

I really hope he doesn't emerge as the Liberal leader next week
Frankly, I'm disappointed with the whole lot.

 

[anitram]

This is not Harper's fault; it is Ignatieff's fault. Nobody was talking about it until he brought it up. All Harper did is take advantage of the situation.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

This is not Harper's fault; it is Ignatieff's fault. Nobody was talking about it until he brought it up. All Harper did is take advantage of the situation.

If this is directed at me, I know this, I'm implying that in my second last paragraph.

 

[anitram]

No, it was at trevster's comment. Sorry, I should have quoted.

 

[trevster2k]

You are correct anitram, Ignatieff should have let the sleeping dog lie.

I do find it odd how when pressed Harper refers to the statement as "merely" a motion. The politicians have two be ultra-two faced with this "nation" thing. Well, we are recognizing Quebec but not THAT much.

I don't like the direction our country is going presently. We were the "cool country" a few years back both socially and economically but lately it seems we have lost a lot of momentum. And bringing up this issue and another impending election seems like we are spinning our wheels.

 

[angelordevil]

You are correct anitram, Ignatieff should have let the sleeping dog lie.

I do find it odd how when pressed Harper refers to the statement as "merely" a motion. The politicians have two be ultra-two faced with this "nation" thing. Well, we are recognizing Quebec but not THAT much.

Just when Harper was impressing me with his stand on China, he pulls this. I really don't think he (nor Ignatieff) realize the long- term ramifications of fooling with constitutional wording. It's symbolism at this point, but it's also something that will come to haunt not only them, but also future governments who are left to pick up the pieces.

Quebec is not a nation. Canada is a nation. My Canada includes Quebec as an equal partner, yes, but it's no more a distinct one than Newfoundland or Nunavut.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

Quebec is not a nation. Canada is a nation. My Canada includes Quebec as an equal partner, yes, but it's no more a distinct one than Newfoundland or Nunavut.

I'll have to respectfully disagree with you. English-speaking people often think nation and nation-state are interchangeable but they're not In this case nation (as understood by the Quebecois) means a people with a shared culture, a shared history, a shared language, etc.
The word could definitely apply to other groups in the country but no, Canada is not the only "nation".

 

[angelordevil]

The word could definitely apply to other groups in the country but no, Canada is not the only "nation".

Using that logic, shouldn't the First Nations and English in Quebec have their own mini-nations? Neither of these groups are "Québécois." It gets awfully confusing, and that's the problem.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

Using that logic, shouldn't the First Nations and English in Quebec have their own mini-nations? Neither of these groups are "Québécois." It gets awfully confusing, and that's the problem.

It's not logic, it's the Websters dictionary
And again, it's not that they "have" a nation, it's that they are *considered* a nation.

And the First Nations are considered a nation by people, hence the word "Nation" in their title

 

[angelordevil]

It's not logic, it's the Websters dictionary
And again, it's not that they "have" a nation, it's that they are *considered* a nation.

And the First Nations are considered a nation by people, hence the word "Nation" in their title

So, the English would be Third Nations?

I just think the whole issue of Quebec nationalism is outdated and silly. Respect the past, yes, but get on with it, too. Some of the biggest problems in the world right now are stemming from the very growth of nationalism, where borders and isolationism are replacing good ideas.

The other thing that bugs me is how it's surfaced this week, not from some organic place or yearning, but from a purely tactical and political motivation.

 

[yolland]

Harper's more elaborate plan of decentralization for the entire country

Could someone briefly explain what this consists of? I'm not sure I understand.

 

[anitram]

Could someone briefly explain what this consists of? I'm not sure I understand.

Basically it's akin to the argument for states' rights in the US.

 

[angelordevil]

Could someone briefly explain what this consists of? I'm not sure I understand.

It’s complicated, but basically Harper and his government believe the provincial governments should have more power in administering social programs–instead of a unified federal mandate across the country.

His approach is tied to the idea that there is “fiscal imbalance” between the provinces and Ottawa. Years ago, the previous Liberal government cut back on what’s called “transfer payments” to the provinces in order to fix a deficit problem at the national level. These payments fuelled health-care and other programs that defined the Canadian fabric.

Now that the federal government has run surpluses at a national level, there’s a tension in the country between those who insist provincial tax cuts are a better way to return those funds to individual citizens and those who think a strong national framework is still vital.

Harper, in the former group, would likely argue that his approach not only gives provinces more control, but it would also dull the appetite for separatism in Quebec (and even Alberta).

The big problem with decentralization is that all provinces are not equal, in terms of their respective tax base. While the stronger ones might be able to go it alone on major programs like health-care, poorer provinces would unquestionably suffer.

It’s the kind of issue that calls into question the idea of Canada’s national identity, values, and shared responsibilities for the greater good.

 

[ladywithspinninghead]

So, the English would be Third Nations?

I just think the whole issue of Quebec nationalism is outdated and silly. Respect the past, yes, but get on with it, too. Some of the biggest problems in the world right now are stemming from the very growth of nationalism, where borders and isolationism are replacing good ideas.

Sure, that would be great! Since my mom is English and my father is French-Canadian I would be a "Second" and "Third Nation"!

The idealist in me does agree with your take on nationalism and Quebec - those were also Trudeau's reasons for not recognizing Quebec either. But that's how Quebeckers feel and if it will appease the soft nationalists and keep our country intact I'm all for it.
What remains to be seen however is if Quebeckers will embrace it or not...and whether this will be the end of the story.

I don't think nationalism will ever die though. Look at the "progressive" Europeans - even they're unwilling to hand over a lot of power to the EU.

 

[trevster2k]

So the motion passed last night.

Thanks Harper for muddying the waters even more. Besides the definition of nation, everyone is wondering who the hell the Quebecois are? The answers are varying from original descendents of French settlers, all Quebecers or only French speaking Canadians or to my favourite spoken by our PM, " the Quebecois know who they are". WTF?!?
If someone gave me that kind of answer to a question, I would think they were joking but of course, politicians can give bullshit answers and it's perfectly acceptable.

A cabinet minister stepped down over the issue and one Conservative abstained. I love how our democracy works, crack the whip, vote against party line and get ousted from caucus. Threats work.

I look forward to the next few months and years as other groups like the First Nations, Albertans, Newfoundlanders, Chinese and so on seek "nation" status. Plus wonder how the Separtists use this as leverage to promote their cause.

 

[Ormus]

Stephen Harper, to me, is, essentially, trying to mock Canadian separatism by equating the identity of the "Québeçois" as you would the indigenous peoples of Canada. In other words, the Québec "nation" would be no different than the "First Nations." Since Québec already wields an awful lot of autonomy and special statuses within Canada, Harper is essentially able to confuse the situation without having to change anything.

Practically, however, it certainly won't placate Québeçois separatism, but it styled to make these separatists seem increasingly unreasonable, and, hence, it would give Harper justification to ignore them and stop giving Québec any future special treatment.

 

[AliEnvy]

it would give Harper justification to ignore them and stop giving Québec any future special treatment.

Actually, I think the divisiveness of this issue will give him the leverage he needs to further his plan to decentralize federal control across all provinces.

At a point to come when this "nation" thing goes the way of "distinct society" (recognition only, no special powers yet Meech Lake still fell apart) then the only route to avoid another referendum will be to grant a new level of provincial autonomy for Quebec - and all other provinces for it to pass - all in the name of preserving Canadian unity.

Very risky and high chance of completely backfiring unless (and until) the rest of Canada is willing to acknowledge Quebec's uniqueness - so hopefully the commons motion will suffice.

As a born and bred Montrealer who packed up and headed down the 401 after the last referendum, I see both sides of the issue and only hope that Harper plays his hand very carefully now that the cards have been dealt.

 

[trevster2k]

Our wonderful PM is now finally reopening debate on same sex marriage which we had already put to bed. I hate Harper!!

AliEnvy, could you explain to me what is missing from Quebec that separation from Canada would provide them? Is it simply an independent voice at the table or their own hockey team? Cause all I see is lose-lose for everyone if there was a separate Quebec.

 

[anitram]

(recognition only, no special powers yet Meech Lake still fell apart)

Quebec has to take the majority of the blame for Meech Lake (along with slow premiers) because it was their re-insertion of s. 33 clause into legislation following SCC's decision in Ford that completely eroded any good feelings English Canada may have had (and they did initially).

 

[AliEnvy]

For sure...the nicety of the distinct society clause didn't really mean anything (which is why English Canada was initially ok with it) without the means to protect the "distinct society" - AND they actually had the gall to use the notwithstanding clause on Bill 178 which rightfully pissed off English Canada once again.

 

[AliEnvy]

AliEnvy, could you explain to me what is missing from Quebec that separation from Canada would provide them?

The same self-governing control that all the other provinces want except that the other provinces aren't able to manipulate the debate into the same kind of us vs. them scenario due to language barriers...and of course, the masses tend to vote with their hearts, not minds.

 

[Zoomerang96]

only 24 years after officially cutting ties with the UK...

more and more it looks like canada will become a not-so-united kingdom itself.

canada
consisting of:
quebec
alberta
and...err the rest? what could we call the rest of us... england2?

 

[trevster2k]

Well, I'm not from BC but British Columbia and Alberta have recently decided to see if they can align professional associations so there are no differences in qualifications between the provinces. Thus allowing employees to work in both provinces using the same certification. So I'm fairly certain that if Alberta buggered off, BC would go with them.

Maybe we could build a wall or something..

Thanks for the response Ali! I thought it was something else that I was not in the loop about. But Alberta and Newfoundland have people working on the hearts and minds thing too, it seems so effective in garnering attention from the feds. But they aren't too effective.......yet.

 

[RavenBlue]

Using that logic, shouldn't the First Nations and English in Quebec have their own mini-nations? Neither of these groups are "Québécois." It gets awfully confusing, and that's the problem.

Rick Mercer and 22 minutes had some fun with that last night.

I find this whole thing very confusing and I still don't quite understand it. I know it came pretty well out of nowhere.