It looks like Monday at 6:30 pm or so I will be asked to rise in my place in the House of Commons and vote yea or nay to the notion that Quebecois are a nation within Canada. There is no doubt, this could be the most important vote I cast as an MP.
Some people say, however, it’s just semantics, that bestowing the title of “nation†on the people who live in Quebec really means nothing. But if that’s the case, why does the prime minister say it’s so crucial to thwarting the forces of separatism, and why’s the vote being rushed through the Commons?
Others worry that calling Quebeckers a nation has unknown consequences which could end up being serious beyond words for our country. In fact, when I watched PQ leader Andre Boisclair on the news tonight, he was saying this new definition gives separatists the legitimacy they have always been after, to demand all the autonomy a nation deserves.
I am troubled this whole thing was dropped in our laps on a Wednesday afternoon without warning, and that it will be a done deal, sealed by a Parliamentary vote, by suppertime Monday. In Ottawa this is the equivalent of drag racing, since it can take an MP like me most of a year to get a piece of legislation to a final vote – if he’s lucky.
I’m troubled because this looks like it was prompted by Mr. Harper’s desire to win more seats in Quebec by pandering to nationalist sentiment in that province. I am troubled that the Liberals jumped to embrace it because it means they don’t need to debate this at the leadership convention next weekend. I’m troubled that all the Conservative MPs, and now all the Liberal MPs, have been told how to vote on the motion by their leaders. Hard to see how they can reflect their regions that way. And I’m really troubled the government has given me, one MP, hardly any time to take this very important thing back to the voters and citizens for input.
So it was just dumb good luck that I had a Town Hall meeting scheduled for tonight in Oakville, the 18th one since January. I drove down from Ottawa, arriving a few minutes late (damn that Toronto rush hour traffic), to find the room packed with people. We talked some about income trusts and my being an Indie MP and health care – but mostly it was all about the Quebec nation.
The debate was impassioned, and seemed to engage the whole room. Some people were predictable in their anti-Quebec arguments, fed up they had to discuss national unity again. Others were emotionally patriotic, and worried about the consequences of the Harper motion on the very nation. There was frustration and anger the thing is being stampeded through Parliament, and a consensus this will, in Quebec, end up making nationalism stronger and federalism weaker.
I listened carefully, fighting the déjà vu. This could have been me standing in front of a hall packed to the rafters with angry voters back in 1992 during the Meech and Charlottetown days, when people had been forced by the political and media elites in Ottawa to confront a compromise they were not willing to make. At least then, it ended in a vote.
And so did our little meeting tonight. Pretend you are me on Monday night, I said. Here’s the motion: That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.
Not every hand went up when I put the motion to the crowd, but the outcome was unequivocal. In favour, 1. Opposed, 33.
I have more constituents to talk to over the next couple of days. I have comments to read on this site and scores of emails flowing in. I have a few folks in the community whose opinion I greatly respect to chat with. And I have a lot of thinking to do.
This vote matters. And tonight I have one consoling thought. I am an independent MP. I get to decide what’s best for my country, not my party.
97 comments ↓
You may want to install voting system for your constituents in your site, Garth.
Hi Garth.
I’ve been meaning to comment for quite a long time since you left the Conservatives.
Thank you for not being a puppet and for having the b#@lls to do what you and your constituents believe is right.
Don’t change.
Keep up the good work.
Will
I was at that meeting tonight. I was one that spoke my piece. And I left prouder as I have ever been as a Canadian for it.
I believe in Canada. One Canada.
We might have different languages, cultures and provinces we call home. But we all share an ideal that this land we live in is abetter place then any where elso in the world.
Thats why we come here. Thats why we stay and build a better life for our children. Because our Nation, our Country, Canada is blessed. We have more than anything we will ever need to be great.
My family has been here for 8 or 9 generations, maybe more. We have been the hand that welcomes the new. We have been the blood and life that has been lost to protect our Nation. We have been the sweat and toil that made it grow.
I told Garth tonight that if I were voting I would vote NO. I have seen what the term nationhood has done to the town of Caledonia. And I know what this vote will do to this country that my family and friends and nieghbours and stragers have built.
It will destroy it.
Not Tuesday morning after the vote.
But soon.
I asked Garth to vote NO Monday at five. I hope more of you will ask the same. And ask the same of your own MP.
Please.
We are one NATION……Canada.
“Thank you …for having the b#@lls to do what you do…”
That comment is sexist, and does not belong in an egalitarian, democratic society.
Garth, if this bill is going to support Quebec separatism, why, pray-tell, is Giles Dupceppe so angry that it is being put forward? And why is such a long-term federalist (Liberal Premier Jean Charest) so supportive of it when he, of all people, acknowledges that this will not require any constitutional change?
And if it would support separatism, why, pray-tell, will not even one federalist party exploit this situation and oppose it, and stand up for Canada and against this bill?
It is because this bill will damage the separatist cause severely, and all of the party leaders know it.
In my view, this hysteria in opposing it is more emotive than rational. Many have simply misunderstood the intent, and have over-reacted. After your initial outburst in fleeing the chamber yesterday, it appears now that you are giving the matter sober second thought, which is a good thing.
It all boils down to confusion over the concept of a “nation” with that of a “nation-state.” Canada is one nation-state, but made up of a multiplicity of cultures, nationalities and languages.
A “nation” is an “ethnos,” an “ethnicity,” a distinct people group who share a common culture, language and way of life.
Garth, I am surprised at your initial reaction to this, since you were one advocating on the side of “distinct society” during the Mulroney years. A nation is simply a distinct people group who share a common language, whether it be one of the First Nations, or one of the later immigrant groups.
All indigenous groups, including the “Inuit” refer to themselves as a “nation,” but they are also very loyal Canadians.
What people need to understand is that people feel a far greater loyality to their ethnic identity and language than they do to an impersonal bureaucracy or state authority that by-passes family and extended family and kindred.
The only alternative to respecting the distinctiveness of the various people groups within Canada is to enforce an homogeneity and an assimilation on the various people groups into one monolithic whole which would require the heavy hand of the state to control people’s way of life against their will.
Who wants that? No, Stephen Harper is going in exactly the right direction on this one, and the Opposition knows it.
You say, “I am troubled this whole thing was dropped in our laps on a Wednesday afternoon without warning…” I understand that he did consult with the leaders of both of the other federalist parties.
We should be rejoicing that the Bloc Quebecois has been outmaneuvered on this one, and I would go so far as to suggest that it is those who oppose legislation like this that are perceived by the Quebecois as not recognizing their distinctiveness as a people group, and it is this that fans the flames of separatism, not the bill itself which will be a severe blow to the separatist cause among Quebecois.
This is nothing but a diversionary tactic from Mr. Harper. Nobody is talking about Kyoto, Afghanistan or the Dawson College shooting and gun control. A brilliant move to stop the Conservative’s free-fall in Quebec and deflect attention to less important matters.
Garth vote ‘no’. This is just cold calculated politics looking for a relatively short term gain to make it easier to stay in power when the next election is called. If it were a free vote in the Commons it would be better, but it is still wrong to rush it. You’ve done more consultation with the blog and town halls than PMSH has done.
I voted to unite the right, but was I wrong? I will also be mailing Keith Martin my MP to urge him to do the same.
Garth, my thanks for your reply a while ago. Regardless of that, this issue is unfiortunately a very serious one. I’ll give Harper credit balls for taking this issue and for now, at least, diffusing the BQ on this before they had time to work the system to their advantage.
Would this not be considered treason? If so, wasn’t such a charge worth being incarcerated over? Well, assuming that the Clarity Act still is in law I wonder what proceedings shall commence from this point on. I suppose we have Michael Ignatieff (sorry about the probable incorrect spelling) to thank for this quagmire of a political situation. Hate to say it but I think anyone else, Rae included, would be a better choice than him.
I support the idea that yes you are a nation within the country. However, additional powers are not necessary. Makes me wonder if the hidden hands of the Illuminati are behind all of this. Sorry, I am a somewhat paranoid individual that can’t help but wonder about that now.
Be that as it may, at best this resolution will be a short to medium term solution. I doubt it will be effective after 5 years, much less 2 but I could be wrong. Although in an ironic manner, assuming that all of North America merges into one country, which does scare the crap out of me, if Quebec thinks it is overlooked now, I can only imagine how bad they may feel in a unified North America. That is almost too funny to think of.
It is important not to confuse “nation” with “country”. There are already hundreds of other nations within Canada – collectively known as First Nations – so recognizing one more is not a huge leap. Acknowledging their existance and learning how to live with many nations within one country is one of our greatest challenges, and one of our greatest strengths as a country. The failure to recognize this reality is what leads to the conflicts like Caledonia.
This was dropped into Stephen Harper’s lap this week – thanks to that Liberal Iggy and most of Quebec caucus. While I am personally tired of Quebec’s constant whining and blackmail, I re-read Mr. Harper’s speech and I believe he did carefully word the resolution and his speech. This will not re-open the constitution. This will not afford any international voice to Quebec.
Do I think that this resolution will quelch Quebec’s blackmail. Absolutely not! It’s incrementalism at its best.
Do I still think that even suggesting that a Quebecois constructs a nation is bigotted. Absolutely! As in even in this interpretation of “nation”, it implies that only residence of Quebec who are of french descent (language and culture) are considered a nation – a pur a laine. It doesn’t include the Cree or any other British Empire (i.e. Irish and English) heritage.
Do I think that that Quebec will eventually create its own internationally recognized country. Absolutely! Most of their children have been brainwashed by their brainwashed parents and don’t have any strong feelings towards Canada. As most of the non pur a laine have left Quebec, the next referendum will be have a positive result.
Do I think that the lead upto and following a referedum will have a negative impact on Canada’s economy. Absolutely! So a clear and level head is required to mitigate this impact.
Don’t get sucked into thinking that Harper’s motion is just semantics and has no real impact on anything – words can be twisted to anyone’s advantage. We’ve all seen that done before.
The only message to send to Quebec is that we are all one nation – Canada.
My Canada includes Quebec….. and PEI and Nova Scotia, and BC, and Saskatchewan, and Alberta……….you get the drift
On Monday – Vote NO
Which province is next in line to desire to be recognized as a nation? Or ethic groups wanting their own nation. Just wait…
Whether you are a nation or a group of people within a nation this is a sad reality we all must deal with in my opinion.
Aboriginal children face terrible poverty in Canada: report
Last Updated: Friday, November 24, 2006 | 7:31 AM ET
CBC News
A national network of advocacy groups released a report on Friday that paints a bleak picture of poverty facing First Nations children in Canada.
In its report called Oh Canada! Too Many Children in Poverty for Too Long, advocacy group Campaign 2000 says First Nations children are suffering the greatest levels of poverty of all children in the country.
The report says one in four children in First Nations communities lives in poverty and it calls upon federal and provincial governments to take action to ensure aboriginal children on reserves and in urban areas will thrive.
“With an increasing First Nations and aboriginal population that is both rural and urban, young, vital and rapidly expanding, Canada must address the extremes of poverty that First Nations face on a daily basis. This poverty is systemic and long-standing, and requires concerted action from all levels,” it reads.
According to the report, First Nations children face terrible daily living conditions and are more likely than other Canadian children to suffer health problems. Among the problems listed:
* One aboriginal child in eight is disabled, double the rate of all children in Canada.
* Among First Nations children, 43 per cent lack basic dental care.
* Overcrowding among First Nations families is double the rate of that for all Canadian families.
* Mould contaminates almost half of all First Nations households.
* Almost half of aboriginal children under 15 years old residing in urban areas live with a single parent.
* Close to 100 First Nations communities must boil their water.
* Of all off-reserve aboriginal children, 40 per cent live in poverty.
“Now is the time for governments at all levels to collaborate with First Nations governments and aboriginal organizations to ramp up social investments that enable young aboriginals to succeed,” the report says.
Others have said it…not all the residents (voters) of Quebec are Quebequois. Quebec and Quebequois are not synonimous, although Mr. Duceppe would have us believe they are.
So if the motion is, “The Quebequois are a nation (whether in a united Canada or not), the answer is yes. If the motion is, “Quebec is a nation (whether in a united Canada or not),” the answer is a resounding no!
Definitely NO for me. Simply because nobody is talking about what the consequences are (which makes believe there are none but still…) Plus if you make Quebec, and I really don’t care if they say Quebecois since 95% of all Canadians will not even realise the difference, a nation, it makes a lot of sense to maker the first nations a nation too. What is next after that?
“Most of their children have been brainwashed by their brainwashed parents and don’t have any strong feelings towards Canada.”
Catherine, I almost always agree with you but this time I must disagree. As a former resident (and happily so) of Montreal, I had the opportunity to cover a large part of the province by participating is many, many bonspiels. I also worked in a completely French-speaking province.
The new generation is not brainwashed, generally. In fact, my generation and those before mine were brainwashed by both the Catholic church and the often corrupt provincial government.
Today’s Quebecois is just like you and me – concerned with getting ahead, buying homes, being educated etc. In the many years of my residence in Montreal, I met only two anti-Engilsh/Canada francophones.
Garth
I am a strong believer in Canada. It trumps my Province of Birth Saskatchewan, it beats out the places I have resided in this country … Edmonton, Vancouver and now Toronto !!! Being one country united by shared values is what Canada is all about and I love it! I have been to different places in this World and people love Canada and Canadians. We are fortunate indeed. Most people want to say this is a Black and White question with a black and white answer … That’s easy and we “love easy” What we really need to do is find out what Quebec really wants for itself. Once that has been established then they need to make the choice. We are only united together when that statement is actually true. Someone in Alberta or BC that says “We’re all united” may not be speaking for or even understand Quebecers. We are great and united because that is what most people want …When and if that changes we need to be prepared to “go with the flow” THe PM has done this to incite an agenda. From day one I have never believed that PMSH and his band of “merry men” (Including Doris Day) have never cared at all about Quebec. For them it is like this …If Quebec wants to stay and we can get extra votes there “great” if they want to go it will be fantastic for the CPC’s right wing agenda … Western Canada and specifically Alberta will carry alot more weight when and if Quebec is gone. Canada as a nation with 22-23 Million is still totally viable on the Worldstage …Quebec as a nation with 6 million is also a viable entity as a nation. Seperation will not cause havoc and it will not destroy our economies. We will continue to trade …perhaps in a better way. THere will be no war unless we start it!!!
So GArth my vote in our current situation would be a “NO” vote right now and under these circumstances.
There seems to be two separate issues here. The term “nation” as defined in Harper’s resolution does not appear to be a problem and it is a resolution not legislation.
On the other hand, a potential problem may come from the term “Quebecois” because the Prime Minister made it clear that it meant “Quebeckers” rather than a cultural nation that crosses political boundaries. Who is a “Quebecker”? In Harper’s speech he made it very clear that he was leaving the definition of Quebecois to the Quebec legislature. Does this mean that a separatist legislature could declare independence without going back to the people for a clear vote?
It appears to me that this resolution was poorly thought out and certainly not “conservative” but radical in its implications. Instead of clarifying the issue it has clouded it even further.
I would recommend an MP vote against it given the full context of Harper’s speech.
He appears to have made a major error in not defining what he meant by Quebecker. If Quebecker is defined as one who lives in Quebec only then he has given the separatists considerable ammunition.
Garth,
This issue is moving far too fast, as you are concerned, so am I! I cannot trust PM Harper, and politics being what it consistently shows itself to be, i.e., corrupt power plays, leaves me cold.
Semantics are the key to this, and as we all know, semantics are like trying to hold onto an eel…slippery, twisting, and usually impossible to grasp.
I will say this, the CBC, last night on The National, actually presented the dictionary definitions of the word ‘nation’! That was refreshing to see.
The other word of concern is quebecois versus Quebec, The first is fine, the second is definitely not. The first relates to the people, the second to empowered government which is obligated to Canada.
All people want to be self-determining, yet want the benefits of collective participation.
Consider what would be the result if all the former Americans who have immigrated to Canada, and are now citizens, were to define themselves as a nation? There are over 500,000 such people here fitting into that ‘nation’! They, left the U.S. because of many reasons, but mostly to live in a country, a nation, which had unity. The separation of powers into federal and 50 States plus the territories, has produced non-uniform law, competitive disruption of society, a need for migration that has left many homeless.
This is an issue that requires extremely careful consideration and wording. On the face it appears a good idea, but so does standing at the edge of a cliff to see better…until the cliff shears from the disturbance of the added weight!
The bottom line appears to be a reaction to the Bloc’s planned bill, rather than an openly debated issue!
Quebec cannot form a ‘nation’ for legal as well as reality reasons. The wording must clarify that.
Have a good weekend. I know it will be filled with a thousand ‘what-ifs?’, but take time for yourself as well. You are only human, and a good man!
Let’s cool the rhetoric and the hysteria. The Supreme Court of Canada has already said that Quebecers can separate from Canada if the majority of them decide to do so in a clear referendum. And no provincial government of Quebec would ever declare independence without a Referendum, because if they did, it would be declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court of Canada.
These are the wonderful checks and balances that we have in our system.
“Which province is next in line to desire to be recognized as a nation?” It is questions like this based on misunderstanding that fuel the debate. A nation is not a “province” but a “people group.”
The Inuit were given territorial status in 1999, and they seek themselves as a nation within Canada, and they are very loyal Canadians at that.
This was an absolutely brilliant move by Stephen Harper. Absolutely brilliant.
Whether we like it or not, this is a done deal. The relentless verity is 75 federal seats in QC, and no party can whistle past that political graveyard.
The ROC can earnestly declare that there are no consequences to calling Quebecers a nation. Quebecers will know how to turn that into nationhood.
Garth, you will stand up on Monday with a few other “nays.” You will go out in a blaze of glory, and your constituents from coast to coast will be proud of you. But it’s time to start thinking of the economic consequences of the peace with Quebec. No pun intended.
The following unsientific poll on the CTV website tells the story.
Morris Lewicky.
Do you support PM Harper’s motion on Quebec as a ‘nation within Canada’?
——————————————————————————–
Thanks
for voting
No.
59%
Yes.
35%
Undecided. Tell me more.
6%
Dear Indie,
As representative for the entire nation of Disenfranchised Canadian Voters, please ask this question to PMSH during the motion debate:
Clarity has always been critical for rational decision-making on the divisive issue of Quebec nationalism. Mr. Speaker, Canadians and their MPs need the PM to clarify the real meaning of this motion.
Is it:
(A) Completely meaningless
(B) Likely to give Quebeckers special rights and powers other Canadians are not entitled to
(C) A manipulative technique to get Quebec Nationalists to do the dirty work for Alberta Seperatists
(D) Intended to accomplish the ultimate goal of breaking Canada into manageable chunks for expansionist Americans.
(E) All of the above.
Once Graham understands that Iggy and Harper and Emerson are trojan moles planted to execute a bulletless occupation, the Liberals will stand on guard with you, and vote NO.
This supporter asks you to vote NO.
Please respresent the majority of Halton voters that are requesting that you vote No on this one. (if, and ONLY if, your research e-mails and comments suggest that the majority position is “NO” of course, because that’s how democracy should work.)
Tom Wilcox
This is just political manouvering and claptrap.
Iggy opened the Pandora’s box and Duceppe was going to seize the day by drawing up a motion that would make the rest of Canada vote No and thus give him the opportunity to rant that Quebec is neither respected or understood.
Instead Harper has outmanouvered him and extracted Iggy from the rock and hard place.
We know Harper’s wording is good because Duceppe is PO’d.So as long as the Quebecois are a nation and not Quebec,who cares.That would make them the Second Nation because we already have a First Nation.
There is no substance behind any of this stuff-it just placates the fervent.
We could even have a TV show “who wants to be a Nation?”
Vote Yes and move on-there are more important things to discuss and do in this country!
I don’t see why people are surprised by this. Harper has been cribbing from Mulrouney’s playbook since taking office. Was no one listening to the part of the Throne Speech about “a flexible federal system” and “the unique place of a strong, vibrant Quebec”? We’re headed down the road of Meech Lake redux; for the CPC’s sake I just hope they remember how this blew up in their faces the last time around.
The ramifications for national unity are undecided, in my books, and the timing may have been dictated by outside circumstances. But this is not Harper’s crass opportunism. This has been part of his agenda from the beginning.
This was the folly of the old Reform policy notion about “10 equal provinces.” “Provinces” are simply man-made boundaries, but “nations” or “ethnicities” are part of the created order. They are in a different category all together.
This is why you can bet your bottom dollar that if the Quebecois ever did vote to separate from Canada, they would have to agree to the separation of the different “nations” within the present boundaries of Quebec as well.
The Inuit of Nunavik (northern Quebec) are already negotiating for separate territorial status, just like Nunavut has territorial status within Canada, and if Quebec should separate, you can be absolutely sure that the Inuit would separate from Quebec, and remain a part of Canada. Nunavik is the northern third of the provincial boundaries of Quebec, and is the homeland of the Inuit, not of the Quebecois.
The middle third of Quebec is the homeland of the Cree First Nation. (Did you note the word “nation” in there?) They have already voted in a referendum endorsed by 96% of their population that they would also leave Quebec, and stay within Canada should the Quebecois separate from Canada.
So all of this is to emphasize that if Canada is divisible, so is the province of Quebec divisible, and these are things that the Quebecois would have to deal with should they ever even think that all of the present territory of the province of Quebec is the same as the Quebecois nation.
It is really sad to see the number of comments that are based on groundless fears and even ignorance about these realities of this situation. It is these emotive fears that only fuel the fires of paranoia.
Relax! Be at rest! The Quebecois is not going to ever succeed in forming a separate nation from Canada without serious repercussions to themselves. It is far better that they be recognized as a nation within Canada, just like the Inuit in Nunavik (northern Quebec) and the Cree First nation in central Quebec already see themselves as a distinct people group, a nation within Canada.
Whatever happened to debating the pros, cons, consequences and ramifications of an issue? Whatever happened to going back to the constituency for their opinion before having a vote on it? Was this an election platform for the Conservatives?
None of that matters anymore does it? The Conservatives had a mandate NOT to tax Income Trusts and they reversed their position. So much for a democracy.
Garth, we all agree that harpers just posturing for more Quebec MPs. That said, what are your plans to quell the motivations for separatism? It seems to me that the underlying problem has not been addressed; address it and maybe the die-hard separatists will lose the support they need to win a referendum.
To me at least, this means giving back the provinces control over their own destiny. Health, Education, Natural Resources, etc.
These problems are most pronounced in Quebec because Ontario politics have always been out of line with Quebecois culture. However, don’t think it’s limited to Quebec, as a person who lived in BC for 22 years and now lives in Alberta, I can tell you there is a lot of separationist attitude over here on the west; it’s just that the feds havnt really stepped on our toes the same way as they do Quebec.
The problem is that Ontario issues have been running the country for generations and will continue to create laws and social programs that don’t make sense for the other provinces.
Regional problem, regional representation, regional taxation. Fix it and you wont have a separatist movement with any real teeth.
This will open a very large can of worms… and in fact it already has. I disagree that Quebec should be considdered a nation. Just because they speak french, doesn’t make them any more or less different then other communities in Canada, like Newfoundland, the Territories, etc.
Back in the 90’s when it was a hot topic, there was a lot of concern from us here in the Atlantic, because if they did seperate and become their own “Nation” then what happens to us here in the Atlantic who will then be seperated from the rest of the country?
There was talk about us being merged into the U.S. (Over my dead body) There were other very concerning ideas that came about, that didn’t appeal very well to me.
This was a very large mistake…. and this large mistake was done in the worst way by Harper.
Back a bit on Quebec’s side of things…. if the overall population of Quebec wish to seperate from Canada, then Canada has no right to repress this decision. If they try to oppose it in anyway (Depending on the level of intent) then it will cause a lot more problems, retaliation and could also bring back what we saw a couple of decades ago, with violence and unbalance.
Well it’s out there now…. and now we’re gonna have to face the upcoming consiquinces. Whatever happens, I know that us here in the Atlantic Provinces are going to be affected by it, much more then anywhere else in Canada.
Also, another bad note….. Give Quebec the status that they are a nation within Canada, and then that opens the door, in one way or another, to take it a step further and get’s them closer to what some want which will eventually be a seperate nation… in between Canada…… in the middle of Canada.
What happens then if they become their own nation? Will they build themselves up and go a different direction then where Canada is going? What will happen in a few more decades if they become aggressive? We’ll have an aggressive nation in the middle of our country and could attack us from the inside out……
^ That’s a long strech, but it’s also a possible outcome that could occur and would make things even worse then how things are today.
And back onto the other side of things, If this is a so-called democratic country, then the goverment should have no right to oppress the general wants and needs of any province. If Quebec as a majority want to seperate, then they have the right as people.
And bouncing back over to the other side of things….. it was mentioned before, they already voted twice before to stay in Canada, so why bring it back up?? That’s just like the Conservatives trying to open the book on Same sex marriages again…… it was delt with already, why waste more of our tax dollars in going over the same thing again, when it was already decided.
Those who lost and are still pushing for their wants, should suck it up and realize it’s done and over with.
I agree with Roger Armbruster. Time will give us a clearer picture but for the present, it could be that the Bloc has been sabotaged.
One more thing…. Why does Quebec want this so badly? Why do they want to be the center of attention over everybody else? Are they not getting equal support from the goverment compared to other provinces? If they need laws, funding and the sort…. why don’t they get the current goverment to do what they need? The goverment is suposed to be there for that anyways.
Why go through all the touble to fight to be their own nation? Then they’d have to form their own goverment and adopt their own system, currency, trade, military, etc……
In the end, they’ll just end up needing Canada’s help anyways, and solve nothing and create more problems.
“La Quebec pour Quebecois seulement.”
My thoughts exactly. Disenfranchise and purge the “ethnics.” Make the Anglos pay. Make the world recognize the Free Nation of Quebec.
However, the ROC MUST continue to support Quebec financially. AND, the ROC MUST continue to maintain official bilingualism. AND Quebec MUST maintain 25% of the seats in the Senate. AND Quebecois MUST have first dibs on all federal programs. AND…AND…AND…
NON. NON. NON. Stay. Or Leave. Be part of the family, or go it alone. Enough blackmail. Play the game, or leave the field.
Egalite. Yeah, Right. How much for that bridge again?
Oops! The Bloc are supporting the conservatives and the Liberals.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061123/quebec_reaction_061124/20061124?hub=TopStories
Harper should be hosting “Deal or No Deal”
Shane said:
I disagree that Quebec should be considered a nation
(1) The PM did not say that Quebec should be considered a nation – he said that the Quebecois should be considered a nation. This is very different from what you are suggesting.
(2) The fact is that if the PM had remained silent on this, the Bloc would have introduced their own version of this motion and we would still be talking about it today. That would have left the PM with very few options and more fuel for the separatist’s fire.
Garth – I have been thinking about this issue over the last couple of days and the more I think about what his options were, I can’t say that I fault the PM for doing what he did. If you were in his position, would you have remained silent and allowed the Bloc to introduce their version of the motion?
Shane said:
I disagree that Quebec should be considered a nation
(1) The PM did not say that Quebec should be c
I have voted in every election at all levels ever since I was old enough to vote many years ago. I am bitter, angry and disillusioned with all the parties- they are all jumping on the bandwagon on this Quebec vote for political expediency. What a selfish reason to mess up one of the best countries in the world. I won’t have to worry about who to vote for in the next election- there will be little left to vote for anyway. I don’t think anyone in Canadian politics believe in putting their country before their own selfish interests.
“Please respresent the majority of Halton voters…”
How do you know that the MAJORITY of Halton voters want this? It always amazes me when people state, with conviction, that “most Canadians” or “the majority of …” want something. I must be totally out of it because I certainly do not know what “majorities” or “most” people know. I know what I know, I know what I feel, I know what I want but I would never take it upon myself to speak for others unless I had a specific mandate to do so.
As Harpo and the all clown party are in free fall in the polls in Quebec this is nothing more than a public relations move.
Remember when 300,marines were blown to smithereens in Lebanon the Republican’s answer was to invade Granada ?
To change the headline and take the nations mind of all the grief in the middle East .
Nope the neo’s will get a ‘dead cat bounce’ in the polls until Quebecers realize they have been screwed once again
or should I say the soverignist movement.
Too much baggage to have any,real,impact on the Quebec nation .
HEY! … Winnipegboy,
I am one of Garth’s constituents, he came to my door, shook my hand and asked for my support.
Now he is asking for my opinion.
PLEASE do not quote me out of context! This what I said:
“Please respresent the majority of Halton voters that are requesting that you vote No on this one. (if, and ONLY if, your research e-mails and comments suggest that the majority position is “NO†of course, because that’s how democracy should work.)”
I have every expectation that Garth Turner will do his level best to get a feel for the majority opinion in the riding of Halton and REPRESENT that opinion with his vote.
I voted no, I am only one vote, if (IF!) the majority in Halton vote no, I expect Garth represent the majority opinion in his riding and vote no. AND I expect Garth to engage in consulting with as many folks in his riding as possible to determine what the majority position is. If Garth determines that the yes vote in Halton is the majority position he should vote that way instead.
I wish Garth all the best and am completely confident that he will represent the majority opinion which ever way it goes.
Tom Wilcox
Nation: “An aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.” –Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.
What I get weary of is all of the bashing against the French fact that comes up every time that this issue comes up.
A nation is simply a people group, an ethnicity, who share a common language and culture.
A family is similarly a unit made up of a number of unique, distinct personalities. Each one is different, yet they form one family unit.
It is the same with a healthy nation-state. Nobody wants to be assimilated into somebody else’s identity. We all want to be ourselves.
What some of those bashing the aspirations of the Quebecois sound like in a Quebecer’s ears, however, is that you must assimilate into a common, monolithic identity called “Canada,” (and we each define Canada in our own terms if we are the dominant culture)and this is what fans the flames of separatism more than anything else.
If we would just sit down like sane, reasonable people, and really hear what is in the heart of the other, you would find that we all want the same thing. We all want the freedom to be ourselves without being asborbed, assimilated or controlled by somebody else’s identity.
As in the family, even so in the nation-state. Unity does not mean uniformity, and diversity does not have to mean division.
Thank God for diversity and variety. Thank God for color. Thank God for harmony.
True unity is a unity within diversity (like the colors of a rainbow, or the unique persons within a family unit). Therefore, those of you who are trumpeting that “I believe in one Canada” do not seem to recognize that unity and oneness does not mean sameness. Your concept of “one Canada” seemingly cannot allow for diversity and variety.
Unity happens when people who are different connect and bond, not when people are the same.
“One Canada” can only be achieved when there is proper respect for the multi-nationalities and languages of the different people groups that make Canada a beautiful place to live.
The old Reformers went to Ottawa in 1993 with many wrong-headed notions in their head about the French fact, simply because they had not talked with many federalist French leaders themselves.
Now that some of them have been in Ottawa for some 13 years, there has been a metamorphasis from:
1. recognizing Quebecers as just one of ten equal provinces.
2. recognizing the Quebecers as a “unique society.”
3. now recognizing Quebecers as a distinct nation or people group within a unified Canadian society.
What’s the fuss all about? It is those who insist on reading into this fears that are groundless that keeps the human family within Canadian borders from uniting in the way that we should, each respecting the other’s unique identity, but also very secure in who we are as many nations and tribes, but one united country.
This could be a role model for the world if only we were more secure in who we are and had less of an inferiority complex that keeps us from allowing others to assert their unique identity as well.
Originally, it was the belief in one Creator who created us all that could hold the English (Protestants) and French (Catholics) together, even though they thought differently in many areas. There was a commonality in respect for human life, and human values and freedom, that enabled them to stand together during the world wars, etc.
Without a recognition of the Creator, however, more and more people look to the state to hold the country together nowadays, and this is only a recipe for more autocracy and the control of the state over local and regional aspirations (which is what was tried and sadly failed in the former Soviet Union).
The Canadian Bill of Rights (1960) clearly states that Canadians are held together by a common respect for “moral and spiritual values.”
Those are the things which transcend nationality. They can hold a nation together while allowing for cultural and linguistic diversity.
Other than that, as Niezchitke demonstrated, all that can fill the vacuum once “God is dead” is the will for power, and that is what is scary.
Garth – you lost me on your fifth paragraph. You really lost me.
As I did on your last post, I am going to refer your readers to this article on the INSIDE STORY of why Harper took this position.
You don’t have to be gifted to figure this stuff out – you just need to follow politics. Since most people don’t follow it day-by-day they need to read things like this.
Garth – your position in paragraph five is where I stopped. It tells me one thing with 100% confidence. I am glad you tore up your conservative membership.
Seems odd to me that there are only a “few” folks in your riding whose opinions you “greatly respect”.
You’re being an ass, and you know it. — Garth
give your head a shake, stop the drama, and vote Yes.
Unfortunately this is a PRIME example why Garth’s version of direct democracy doesn’t work. You get a large enough group worked up high enough without them knowing the real issue and there will be lynch mobs in the street. It’s why we have a representative democracy to begin with… unless you can honestly say that all the voters in Halton are political experts who have read and studied everything they need to make informed and critical decisions.
Not that frequent and honest consultations with constituents is a bad thing… quite the opposite. But to assume the laypeople who form their opinions based on sound bytes they get from the local news should direct votes on everything that governs the country is more than a little naive. But it does grab popular support, doesn’t it?
As for this whole Quebec thing… people are (as you can see in this blog) completely irrational about this issue. Probably because we’ve all lived through referendums and posturing for years and years. So instead of recognizing this as a brilliant move to render the Libs impotent AND make the Bloq look foolish, chicken little is seeing the sky fall.
Garth: Pardon my sarcasm, but it appears Stephen Harper and the good old Muroney boys have snookered those cowboys lock stock and barrow and they never saw it coming but should have with Peter MacKay’s lie. Now we know the hidden agenda. Give Brian Muroney Meach Lake at any cost and they will live a good life and who cares who’s PM next.
From Montreal our PM has told Canadians not to worry it is not like it’s in the Constitution. Wow what a day for Canada…the WEST RULES, once the west was on side standing by their man, mountains were moved. Quebec is so happy they could ___. All he did was call the Greatest Prime Minister ever his mentor ” Brain Muroney” who gave him the word, go for it! Now,it is time for the West to rally around Stevie & Co and give the Order of Canada to Brian Muroney for his leadership in Quebec’s best Christmas gift ever Nationhood/Distinct Society wrapped in love from the H of C. Ottawa Canada. Canada is a better country to day because of the west’s unwavering love for the Conservative Party of Canada.
winnipegboy, what I meant by brain washed was not to hate les anglais, but, it’s “we are different than the rest of Canada and we deserve to be an internationally recognized nation”.
Morris Lewicky, CTV’s polls asked if Quebec (the province) is a nation within Canada. Of course the answer should be a resounding NO!
I AM A CANADIAN SEPARATIST ! Can’t wait till we separate from Quebec. Just too tired of spending billions of dollars supporting them (read a “have not province”) while they keep weaping and whining like a spoiled brat of a child demanding more.
Having spent more than 25 years on business trips to Quebec, when they found out that I was from Ontario, I’ve been insulted, ignored, encountered the language police and called names I wouldn’t use in a ship’s hold or a men’s locker room.
This is why now, that I have no necessity to travel to Quebec but on travelling to the East Coast of Canada, I exit at Cornwall, Ontario and re-enter at St. Stephens, New Brunswick.
On route we camp at some gorgeous sites,meet many hospitable Americans and are not told there’s no room at the inn in various parts of Quebec.
Can’t wait till they complete a thruway from Cornwall to St. Stephens. They’ve already started with many highway improvements. Could this possibly be to accomodate the many Canadians to by-pass Quebec ?
It’s time to put a stop to this before the “Quebecois form a nation within a united Canada” motion goes too far. I keep asking the question–”who really won the battle on the Plains of Abraham” ?
Has anybody botthered to ask this “nation” question of the people in Victoria, BC., Vegreville, AB, Val Marie, SK, or Virden, MB. I doubt it.
How many of the CPC MP sheep from Western Canada will say to PMSH “yes sir, how many bags full sir ?”
AND TO THOSE THAT BELIEVE THIS MOTION WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM, I HAVE A NICE SANDY, OCEAN SIDE BEACH FOR SALE IN SASKATCHEWAN.
Morris Lewicky.
Does anyone else read The Blogging Tories? There is a Forum thread called Is there a federalist party in Canada? One of the site admins – CRAIG (I think he also uses the name FERRET to post on this blog)- posted this response. I wonder if anyone else here finds it surprising?
-Quote-
The concept of “nation” is highly over-rated. We need to get over our sovereignty insecurity and form a strong union (much like the EU) with the United States. It wouldn’t bother me in the slightest if the concept of Canada as a nation ceased to exist.
-Unquote-
That person certainly is not a Canadian (Tory or otherwise) in my books! Sort of gives you some insight into the people who follow Harper faithfully.
Those of you are are predicting the end of Canada over this should be held accountable for your false predictions and fear mongering.
This country was built upon a foundation of faith, not of fear.
“We have nothing to fear, but fear itself.”
Relationships are based on trust, not on fear, and your continual suspicions of the motives of all Quebecers are a big part of the problem, and no part of the solution.
“So instead of recognizing this as a brilliant move to render the Libs impotent AND make the Bloq look foolish, chicken little is seeing the sky fall.”
By Achnad on 11.24.06 3:26 pm
Achnad,
Do you truly believe that we should be celebrating the “brilliance” of the myopic, partisan moves of a Prime Minister buys trying to outmanoeuver the oppostion, rather than trying to do what’s best for the future of the country?
I think I just threw up in my mouth.
Is there a prize that we don’t know about for the first party that sticks it to federalism in this country? Because a few seats in Quebec hardly seem worth the beating that whoever pushes this through should take in the rest of the country. And they’d better take a beating. C’mon Karma!
Morris Lewicky, when you ask, “Who really won the battle at the Plains of Abraham…” it seems like you are looking at a military victory rather than for a diplomatic solution.
You should know that brute force never captures hearts, and the challenge left to us after the Plains of Abraham is how we can build trust and goodwill with the Quebecois so that we wanst to live together in the same country.
Now Stephen Harper has pulled the amazing diplomatic feat of causing the Bloc to do a belly-flop, and contradict themselves for the third time in three days, and to actually agree to keep the French identity within “a united Canada.”
This capitulation on the part of the Bloc was a far more meaningful surrender than ever took place on the Plains of Abraham!
Its a good day for the new nation of Quebec. When l was in the Canadian Forces back in the early 80’s, l was based in Montreal for a few months and most of the vehicles owned by the French soldiers had a “Country of Quebec” licence plate on the front. The military tried to ban them on the base, but miserably failled. From that point on, us Anglophone soldiers agreed that Quebec and its people should get out of Canada. They already had their own military. So like most Canadian’s who are fed up with this Quebec issue, that never seems to end…give them what they want and let them go. So Garth, if you have the b@@@s (of course such a sexist remark)vote in favour of giving them the nation they want.
And be nice to your constituents and don’t call me an IDIOT again.
dat Shtephen Harpur is veally a clippery one! He phooled even me! At first I thot he vas selling out to de Block, but now I cee dat de Block has changed der mind, and is in agreement to live in a united Kanada! Vonderful!
“Nation: “An aggregation of persons of the same ethnic family, often speaking the same language or cognate languages.†–Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language.”
Nation: “Groupe humain constituant une communauté politique, établie sur un territoire défini ou un ensemble de territoires définis, et personnifiée par une autorité souveraine.” Petit Robert: dictionnaire de la langue Française.
Well the Bloc did an end run around SH!
They announce they are going to introduce a motion that the Quebequois are a nation, period. Not to be outdone and lose support in Quebec, SH, comes up with his own saying they are a nation in a United Canada. Then the Bloc say, close enough.
The Bloc must be laughing. They played the political game and got what they wanted, the Canadian Parliament to say yes, you are a nation!!!
I get a sense around here that some people would oppose Stephen Harper, no matter what he does, or no matter the issue.
Some would like Garth to oppose this resolution for the reason that it would oppose Stephen Harper.
As one comment stated, “Sort of gives you some insight into the people who follow Harper faithfully.”
Have we lost sight of the fact that those who follow Bill Graham and Jack Layton will also be voting with Stephen Harper on this?
And who looks like they are confused–Stephen Harper or Gilles Duceppe (who has been taken aback by this, and contradicted himself three times in three days)?
A true leaders sees a vision that others may not yet see, but that does not make the vision false. A true vision of unity is not a unity of sameness, but a unity of diversity. That vision is the only hope for a united Canada. When will we get it?
I’d vote YES. Natives are a “nation”, why not the quebecois, who were a very significant founding people in this country (mapping and travelling from sea to sea to sea), and who currently also feel threatened culturally.
Roger Armbruster, so you think the separatists have been outmanouvered, eh?
From cbc.ca:
Parti Quebecois Leader Andre Boisclair said Ottawa should be congratulated, even if the recognition is purely symbolic.
“Canada is coming out of denial, and as I see the debate going on and evolving in the past hours, I see that it’s a difficult awakening,” Boisclair said in Quebec City.
“The debate is still on, and we still don’t know what will be the conclusion. But what I see is a net progress for Quebecers that we will not be called a distinct society or being a unique part of Canada’s character any more.”
Ken H said
“The PM did not say that Quebec should be considered a nation – he said that the Quebecois should be considered a nation. This is very different from what you are suggesting.”
That’s semantics more than anything. The Quebecois are merely the citizens of Quebec. They are not an ethnic or language group of any kind. Harper may not have said that Quebec is a nation – I’ll have to read the transcript – but in effect that is what he is doing.
Roger, it’s great that we can come here to debate this issue, don’t you agree? Too bad most Canadians won’t get a chance to dialogue with their MP on this issue.
Harper may have made some savvy tactical moves at times however he is not infalliable. I’m not sure who is advising him on this issue but why would he not let the Liberals implode on this issue and then pull it out of the fire after the damage there was done?
One could argue that Harper could have responded to the BQ that Canada is one nation, not two, and that the current government reconfirms the motion passed in the 90’s that Quebec’s distinct society is still valid. To let this nation-”lite” label be given to Quebec will do one of 2 things: enbolden the separatists to keep pushing the envelope or insult the separatists that English Canada is giving them lip service and nothing else.
And don’t discount that there are many Quebecers that do not want the federal gov’t to give the separatist cause any more credibility.
You’re right Garth.
It’s just too difficult for you to understand.
So don’t vote. Don’t even show up. We’ll understand. Ask the people of Halton if you can stay home that day.
Hey! Call a press conference to say you’re not coming ’cause it’s not about you.
That should do it.
BG – They are not going away. That’s the problem.
Mr. Duceppe has been planning Quebec’s separation, which is supposedly to involve your tax dollars.
I say challenge them now before they get too far down the path. Re-open Meech!
quebec seperation would be best for all canadians, mostly quebecers. get rid of those parasites called mps.
Were I in your position, I would vote no. Quebec is not a nation, but it is a significant part of one; and so is Ontario, so are Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, and Nunavut- we’re all in this crazy country together equally.
The time for the Meech Lake Accord is gone, but the time has come where there are enough issues to seriously consider re-opening a constitutional debate. Issues dealing w/ First Nations peoples, Equalization, (It would eliminate so much bickering if we could enshrine a formula based on an agreed set of factors), Citizenship, and an elected Senate. The time is now to start talking about it, now if only Harper would stop those alleged discussions he’s having with the Premiers, and utilize the MP’s in order to consult with us about our constitution.
-Laura
This is an issue far too important to be shoved through Parliament.
When the Prime Minister from some reports has had several months to think on this, he then expects Canadians to leap, and his MPs to simply ask how high he wants them to jump while they are on the way up.
If Prime Minister Chretien had tried this, Stephen Harper would have demanded time for cooler heads to prevail.
That he isn’t and won’t only suggests that to Harper the elitist attitude and concentration of power in the PMO is has infected his democratic roots.
Incredible, and sad.
Canada has two solitudes. The Canadian people, and Canadian political parties.
Tom – I did not take you out of context. You used the word “majority” as in ““Please respresent the majority of Halton voters that are requesting that you vote No on this one.” You are assuming that the majority of Halton voters want Garth to vote no. How do you know that the majority of Halton voters want this? That is what I would like to know.
Catherine – thank you for the clarification. I respect your posts – you have a logical and clear way of putting things.
Tom – How about if you had phrased it “please vote in accordance with the majority of input you receive”. That would have left the door open either way. But using “majority” in your first sentence implies that you assume that the majority of input will indicate that Garth should vote “no”.
Catherine – thank you for the clarification. I respect your posts – you have a logical and clear way of putting things.
Yes the separatists were out maneuvered, because now we will have it on official, public record that the Bloc Quebecois want the Quebecois as a people group to stay within Canada. The federalists can throw this in their face every time they raise the ghost of separation again. They were outwitted and outmaneuvered.
Garth if this is a vote about semantics or symbolism then why bother or just vote out of courtesy.In this case the no vote is as valid as the yes vote
If it is a vote for substantive change to clarify our relationship with Quebec or protect our country from degradation or destruction then of course no is the proper way to vote in my opinion
The Bloc has contradicted themselves so often during the last few days, and they are so confused that they don’t know which way to turn next.
I believe having a government motion bump the Bloc motion and clearly separation the concept of “nation” from “nation state” is genius. I believe people need to step back from their emotions about how Quebec as a province has had unequal influence on Canadian politics and look up what “nation” and “nation-state” are. Canada is made up of many nations, with the “Quebecois” (Not the same as saying people who live in a province that speak a specific language) being one of those nations. But I agree that these distinct nations can only exist with a strong and united Canada, as I doubt what makes these nations distinct could survive otherwise.
I think all MPs would be voting “Yes” to the government motion, and be thankful that nobody has to bother voting on the divisive Bloc motion.
I AM A CANADIAN SEPARATIST.
To Roger Armbuster,
I don’t normally respond to blog comments, only write my own.
Bur Roger, you hit a nerve when you only picked the part about the battle on the Plains of Abraham.
You want a look at a diplomatic solution ?
Fine, define how diplomatic solutions worked on the following list.
Kaiser, Stalin, Hitler, Stalin (again post WWII) Idi Amin,Milosovic, Hussein, Mao Zedong, Hu Jim Tao, Kim Jong II, Mussolini,Tito, Ho Chi Min.
Just for a short list and how many millions of victims does this total ?
This is why I suport the war in Iraq and Afghanistran. This genocide has to stop.
The rest of my comments on the “motion” still stands.
Morris Lewicky.
Oh, right on, Russel McOrmond! Right on!
This is a VERY small sample of the voters in Halton.
For Winnipeg boy Iive in Halton and have done all my life.
“And so did our little meeting tonight. Pretend you are me on Monday night, I said. Here’s the motion: That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.
Not every hand went up when I put the motion to the crowd, but the outcome was unequivocal. In favour, 1. Opposed, 33.”
I understand the 33 “Opposed” votes to suggest a NO vote to granting the Quebecois “nationhood” within a united Canada.
It is a small sample but I think it represents the majority “No” opinion in the Halton riding.
But fine, lets put it this way:
Mr. Turner should “ vote in accordance with the majority of input he receivesâ€.”
That is democracy. (or at least it should work that way)
Tom Wilcox
Garth,
I believe that you an I differ on the exact role of an MP and how he should go about making decisions on important issues. I feel that an MP is elected based on the general principles he puts forward during an election campaign. Once in the seat of power, be it Ottawa, Toronto, or any other capital, the MP votes on issues based on his own convictions. Having been elected, these convictions should already reflect those of the community.
That being said when an issue arises such as the current resolution on Quebec nationhood, I believe the MP should be able to vote his convictions without having to consult constituents. I believe that to automatically turn to “the voters” whenever an issues arises is an abdication of the leadership responsibilty that the MP was given with his election.
Once the MP chooses this method of decision-making he ceases to be a leader and simply becomes a mouthpiece; a role which absolutely anyone could perform. The MP must vote based on his own convictions and the rise or fall in an election based on his record.
I heard Harper speak about this issue during his cancer initiative. What he said was the this recognizes that the Quebecois are unique in that they speak a different language!! That was the end of his statement.
I’m sure Quebeckers will react in different ways to Mr.Harpers new policy.
This was the same man who was terrified to use the word Quebec and Nation in the same sentence or week.
I believe this will spur the separatists to continue their battle more vigorously.
Now that they have nationhood recognition( and that is how the Bloc will spin it) they can press on knowing that the Feds support their rights as a Nation. (definitions and understandings of “nation” will be debated forever).
Time will tell if this political move by Mr. Harper to recoup his huge losses in Quebec is successful.
personally, i’m a big fan of quebec, and have always been in favour of granting some sort of special status….but this?
is there any president for this sort of enactment? what exactly does it mean? to push this thing through in a matter of days is reckless and shortsighted.
btw, garth, now that you’re an ind. you’re going to spend a lot of time wondering about the party system and the calls to vote unanimously. welcome to the nightmare the rest of us have been gagging on forever.
The federalists and nationalists in Quebec want the same thing: Control over the ROC. The federalists say: Give Quebec more money and power, or the nationalists will take Quebec out of Canada. The nationalists say: Give Quebec more money and power, or we nationalists will take Quebec out of Canada. Same message, same threat, same blackmail.
Point to ponder: Income tax comes at two levels. Federal income tax gets collected by Ottawa. Provincial income tax gets collected by Ottawa. Then the federeal govt. decides who gets what. BC and Alberta, and, at times, Ontario, are net CONTRIBUTORS to the federal tax system, that is, they send more money to Ottawa than Ottawa sends back. All other provinces are net BENEFICIARIES Of the system. IN OTHER WORDS, three provinces support the other seven and the Territories. Quebec needs Canada FAR MORE than Canada needs Quebec.
The politicians in Quebec know this – hence the blackmail, which would not be necessary if Quebec were self-sufficient. Alberta is in a MUCH better position to support itself, and as such represents a MUCH better investment opportunity than Quebec ever has, or ever will.
Money and power. Greed and lust. Quebec is MUCH better off inside the tent.
BWDIK
This motion will not stop the Bloc and the separatists from their goal of leaving Canada.
Anyone who thinks that the term “nation” is the same in English as it is in French, is simply being simplistic.
This motion demonstrates that the Harper team is months behind in learning that in the U.S. when they passed meaningless motion after meaningless motion that all the Republicans did was distance themselves from their supporters.
James
Morris Lewicky, if I am to take your comments seriously, and if you are applying instances where diplomacy did not work to the French issue in Quebec, then surely to goodness you are not saying that the only solution in this case is military rather than diplomatic, are you? Has it come to that?
In my view, this resolution does not give the separatist cause in Quebec any more credibility, but it rather gives the federalists within Quebec a strong weapon to use against their separatist counterparts in opposing separatism.
They now can say that even the Bloc Quebecois has agreed to keep the Quebecois as a people group within the corporate identity and nation-state that we call “Canada.” This will be a very much useful weapon, especially since they are voting on it with the full knowledge that they are only recognizing Quebec as a nation within a sociologial sense as a unique people group with a distinct culture, language, and history.
That is clearly understood as the definition of “nation” as understood in the resolution, and yet the Bloc Quebecois are voting for it!
The one united Canada concept has won out over any notion of Quebec as a nation or people group separate from Canada. To all federalists in Canada, I say, “Good on ya!” The separatists are now disarmed and confused!
If this so meaningless to the nation then why have it at all(the vote on nationhood for Quebec) ?
I can see the separatists getting up to all kinds of mischief at the World court etc.
“See it says right here in writing that Quebec is a nation that is being denied its rightful place,on the world stage, by a country called Canada ”
I think this is a horrible idea and one that will come back to bite every Canadian sooner or later .
If this is so easy-peasy how come the declaration wasn’t made after Charlottetown or Meech lake ?
Seems to me we could have avoided a ton of national angst by doing so if,as they say, it is that easy .
Taking away the separatists weapon of creating a nation within the confines of Canada .
I thought it was adumb idea when I first heard it and the more I think about it the more incoherent it becomes .
To Roger Armbuster.
Have you forgotten the War Measures Act. And Pierre had a majority. Can you imagine if and when Stephen has a majority when he is already acting like a dictator.
All the polls are against this “motion” but does he care or really give a damn what anyone thinks.The Libs are backing it because they think they’ll win the next election and the NDP don’t matter one way or the other. The Bloc are for it because SH has opened wide enough to choke on it.
Morris Lewicky.
I live in Montreal(orginally from Ont.) The PM did the right thing to disarm the BLOC’S motion. You all can thank your Liberal leadership hopeful for this mess MR. Iggi from Harvard. There our three nations in Canada. The English Canadian nation , the French Canadian Nation & the First Nations (Mohawks, Cree etc). That’s how Canada was created in 1867. The problem is all the muticultural crap that was shoveled down our throuts by Trudeau.I welcome new comers but they should be assimulated into the treee founding peoples. What the PM did was recognize what consitutes one of the founding peoples of Canada. To bad the rest of the Country can’t recognize that fact. I am a pround 6th generations Canadian. Family homesteaded in Alberta. The trouble with Canada is we try to be all things to all people.
OK folks, let’s make it simple. Many read the comments on this blogm but only afew leave a comment. In one word—are you in favour of Harpers motion –vote–
Yes
No
Morris Lewicky.
extract from http://www.uni.ca/library/distsoc.html “While the British North America Act did not specifically mention the two founding peoples, it did acknowledge the distinctiveness of Quebec and French Canada by the creation of autonomous provinces and by recognizing the religious character of the education system, the civil code and marriage ceremony in Quebec, and the bilingualism of the federal Parliament and, in part, of the judicial system. The “French Canadian nationality”, as George Etienne Cartier said at the time, was to be given its own margin of manoeuvre in Quebec while being called upon to play a role in a larger political scene. Sir John A. Macdonald clearly signalled his understanding of recognizing this distinctiveness when he wrote Brown Chamberlain on January 21, 1856 in reference to his French-speaking compatriots, explaining, “Treat them as a nation and they will react as a free people generally do — generously. Call them a faction and they become factious.” Sir Wilfred Laurier was equally clear when he spoke to the Quebec Legislative Assembly on 24 November 1871, “It’s a historical fact that the federal form was only adopted in order to conserve for Quebec that exceptional and unique position that it occupies on the American continent.”
Because of this, I think the motion only recognize a fact already acknowleged by the Fathers of Confederation. That’s probably why they called a Confederation and not a Federation in the first place.
David B – if instead the motion was to ban abortions and if your MP’s own convictions were pro-life instead of pro-choice, would you be insisting that MP to vote to ban abortion?
To NOT consult with you constituents is an abdication of an MP’s duty. In fact it’s just plain wrong.
But, that’s just my opinion.
Mr. Turner, you said in the comments of two posts ago that I was part of the “problem” more than people like you. I’m not sure what to make of this, but I believe that you confuse problems and answers.
I would suggest voting yes. On the Bloc’s motion. If it is still put to vote. Harper’s motion, again, denies the civic nation Quebecers have been building for 40 years and brings it back at the ethnic level, moving back in time.
This is a pernicious effect of this system. The Bloc’s motion is of the more modern and progressive view and places the nation on a territorial level. Britain recognizes Scotland as a nation, Spain recognizes Catalonia as a nation and the Canadian parliament should recognize Quebec as a nation.
william.
multiculturalism was shovelled down our throats by that paragon of the conservatives, mulrooney.
i agree that mulrooney and trudeau are easily the worst two pms canada ever had. harper is trying hard.
the conservative party sold out after joe clark. the reform party sold out after preston manning.
Doesn’t that just say it all. Canada’s infrastructure is crumbling, health care barely subsisting while being slowly privatized, provinces barely getting by even though the economy is supposedly at its strongest peak. Canadians are in personal debt with most of their income going to mortgage and food.
And the ‘most important vote’ that an MP thinks he will ever cast is over whether a particular adjective should be used to describe a province.
On the issue of what would come next, that Mr. Turner raised in a previous post… Politics are unpredictable. Here is a probable turnout.
On the very short term, Quebec federalists will portray this as an advancement and sovereigntists will portray this as an advancement. Federalists won’t probably make it a central tool in getting more autonomy; it might come up, but they will know this could backfire as they associate denied demands with a recognition of the nation that will then appear factitious. Sovereigntists might refer to it but to think they will use it as a central tool is probably a misunderstanding of Quebec nationalism; it will be secondary to the central self-awareness of the nation. They will however put federalists in front of their contradictions. If they are wise, they will point out that sovereignty can get Quebecers (“the Quebecois”, as English Canadians say) out of the ethnic conceptualization this keeps them in and allow a Quebec nation more civic then ever. All in all, it might even out.
Now in the mid-term and long term. Harper promissed to settle fiscal imbalance before the last election and now Quebecers are disapointed with the result and are less willing to vote for him (but as little as before). The naton motion should act the same way. It will be a practical rattle to dangle in the election campaign once again; Quebecers will afterwards feel betrayed once again. Autonomy and response to demands will probably not follow, and it will be resented. But, this take a small space on a long list of what are seen as repudiations. “Federal” federalists will say that it’s “Quebecois” not “Quebec” that was recognized and therefore entails nothing special for the State of Quebec.
However, as the growing national confidence Quebecers have acquired over the years has parraleled a growing desire for liberty, maybe eventually having their dignity at least apparently recognized by their neighbour could give them more thirst for freedom (“controling its destiny”, as this blog’s author, who I respect, said so well). But now, the brunt of the proof is indeed on federalists, and we should be happy of that because it should bring a more honest debate. The question to them is: as sovereign nations such as Ireland (or even Canada itself) have shown the economical, cultural and international advantages of national independence, as this world has seen more and more sovereign nations over the past half-century, as Quebec “undoubtebly has the means” to acheive sovereignty, as federalist Premier of Quebec Jean Charest affirmed in Paris, why must this nation deny itself national sovereignty? This is simply a logical question and federalists, since they say their option has solid logical bases, should welcome the honest debate and have a logical answer.
I should think the Queen will have something to say about this?
I am very proud that at least one Member for Parliament will take the correct stand – with almost complete advance warning to your constituents,
It is a very dangerous motion to try to include the divisibility clause in this manner without any real sense by the Conservatives that it will split the country again as they did in both Meech and Charlottetown,