When Parliament voted to confer “nation” status on the Quebecois a few days ago too few questions – in my opinion, anyway – were asked. Who exactly does “Quebecois” refer to? How is a nation different from a country? And (especially) why were the separtaists in the Bloc Quebecois so happy to vote for this thing?
In a small quest for answers, I sat down today with one of the top Bloc guys, Pierre Paquette, in his Parliament Hill office. You might find some of what he had to say illuminating.
To view the video (to be posted around 7 pm), click here.
11 comments ↓
Garth –
This has nothing at all to do with the ‘Quebec Nation’ ( although oddly enough it is the Bloc who is pressing the government over the issue) but I would like to know what your position is on the Bloc’s request that the strategy in Afghanistan be changed to more of a reconstruction mission as opposed to a combat mission. Regardless of whether it is for political manouvering or not, I think Duceppe has raised a valid point. I am tired of us asking other NATO ‘partners’ for reinforcements only to be turned down. If other NATO member countries in Afghanistan performing more ‘reconstructive’ duties are refusing to participate in the riskier combat duties then why should Canada assume the lions share of casualties? I have 2 brothers in the forces heading back over to Afghanistan in January for another tour and support them 100% but I don’t want to see their willingness to do the ‘heavy lifting’ in Afghanistan taken advantage of by other countries not doing their fair share. Harper keeps saying that our front line role is an obligation to our NATO partners – funny how 23 of the other NATO member countries don’t feel as obliged. Would you support a motion such as the one the Bloc is considering?
Well Garth my first thought is take great care in what Pierre Paquette is saying. The Bloc want us to think of Quebec as a separate nation today and they act in that manner.
No province should be treated differently other than the respect for Quebec as unique in language and culture. It is important that we protect that but that is where it stops.
Any other changes to give Quebec any freedom must be given to all other provinces. Maybe that is not bad to de-centralize giving more power to the provinces but it must be all.
But as I have said in my past notes we have fought about this now for 200 plus years and it will never stop. There will always be a group in Quebec who want to be an Independant Country. It is our duty to sell the rest on the benefits of being a province within Canada.It is a see-saw. When things are good the majority like Canada. When things are bad or someone starts a silly debate the Bloc wins support. It will never end.It hasn’t as I have pointed out for over 200 years.
A few points I take out of this interview:
1. Paquette defines Quebecois nationhood on the basis of language and residence, taking it out of the ethnic realm. That would include all Quebec residents able to speak “Joual,” avoid some of the problems created by “laine pure” descent, and make the concept of Quebecois nationhood more presentable.
2. Quebecois think it is solely up to them to say what they are and what they will be. Disabuse them of that notion quickly, or accept that our “unified Canada” is a fiction.
3. There is no way the Quebec Provincial Legislative Assembly should have been allowed to call itself the “Assembly Nationale,” and the Povincial Capital call itself the “Capital Nationale.” As intended, those terms have anchored themselves in the Quebec consciousness, and have established an accepted precedent that nationalists can point to at every opportunity.
4. Quebec can purport that all it wants is a new confederation; an unobjectionable desire, except that it wants to rearrange the distribution of powers and resources not between a federal government and 10 equal provinces, but between Quebec and the Rest Of Canada. Not quite the same thing, since it presupposes a Quebec having full nation state status seeking association with the ROC nation state.
Given the federal/separatist tango over the last 30 years, I am not optimistic.
Just turn the clock back to 15 years ago, and remember how people from English Canada like Clyde Wells were stirring up a tempest in a teapot about the “distinct society” clause. I don’t think that anybody seriously questions that anymore that Quebecois are a distinct and unique society, but not superior.
Had we simply acknowledged that 15 years ago without all of this fear-mongering, Canada would be a more unified country today with more respect for one another, and more mutual trust.
For those of us who know that Quebecois are, for the most part, kind and reasonable people, I shudder as to how they will respond every time that the Quebec bashing goes on. This surely contributes more to making them feel rejected and unwanted in Canada, and only fuels the fires of separatism.
Statements like, “Any other changes to give Quebec any freedom must be given to all other provinces” are non-starters because the concept of 10 equal provinces does not translate into 10 equal “people groups,” and people gain their identity from their cultural group rather than a provincial government. Canada is multi-cultural, and not uni-cultural, and you can’t identify people groups in Canada on the basis of provincial boundaries. This was the folly of the old Reform Party approach.
Besides, there are three additional territories in Canada, one representing the Inuit nation of Nunavut, that need to be factored in as well.
The bottom line is that if we start treating people groups with respect, then there is no way that the Quebecois nation can lay claim to all of the Province of Quebec’s present boundaries.
If Canada is divisible and separable, then Quebec is just as surely divisible and separable, and it will be if the Quebecois ever do see their nationhood as outside of Canada.
The Inuit Nation in the northern third of Quebec are already negotiating for separate territorial status for Nunavik, and the Cree First Nation in the central third of Quebec would also remain inside of Canada should the Quebecois separate.
So 2/3 of the province of Quebec would insist on separation right there, so the separatists would have their work cut out for them if they do insist on taking their nationhood outside of the Canadian identity, and so we should have nothing to fear from simply recognizing that they are a nation within Canada. The moment that they say that this nationhood would exist outside of Canada, then it is they who have the problem as to what they are giong to do about Quebec’s borders which will be shown no more respect than what separatists presently show to Canadian borders.
Let’s not continue to stir up more fear based on prejudice and misunderstanding here. The Quebecois cannot win if they do insist on separating, but it is my view that the vast majority do not want to separate, but simply want to be recognized as a distinct people group within Canada.
That will go along way towards diminishing separatism, but all of this Quebec bashing only adds fuel to the fire of separatist aspirations. That is why the flames of separatism ran the highest after the Meech Lake Accord was rejected back in 1991.
Let’s not make the same mistake again!
To all my Ontario friends. I am an English Montrealer, I am not a Quebecois. Paquette does not speak for me nor does he speak for hundreds of thousands of English & ethic people in Quebec. So if & when Quebec does separate I hope you folks in Ontario have plans in place to deal with 2-3 or 4 million Canadians within the boundaries of Quebec?
Fiscal imbalance? Let’s get this straight, so welfare money is now dressed up as “fiscal imbalance”. Ya right.
Kyoto as well, given the arbitrary formula, Quebec stands to recieve payments from the “carbon” (carbon dioxide) producers like Alberta.
This will really sit well with the Western provinces.
the Bloc can smooth talk all they want, but, their ultimate goal is to have their little island in North America.
As for the their “fiscal imbalance”, I’ve never understood that one. They always receive the equalization payments, while at the same time, they provide their students half the cost of tuition fees (in Quebec, their yearly university tuition fees are 2,000$, while in the other provinces, it’s about 4,500$); they have their $7.00 a day daycare for some 38% families to the tune of about 2 BILLION; etc. Why is it that the other “have” provinces have to send their tax revenues to Quebec, when these provinces can’t be that generous with their own residences?
Quite frankly, from the time I can remember, Quebec has been a annoying Canadian partner in our Confederation – from FLQ crisis to this constant incremental appeasement to blatant human rights violations (the fascist language laws).
Let them go.The sooner,the better.I’m quite sure they will be happy to get all the perks they have been receiving from us sucker canadians from their new MOMMY France.
P.S. I taught french for 30 years.BONNE CHANCE!
Quebec isn’t an anoyance. The separatists are and to this point the majority favour remaining in Canada so lets not forget that.
I love this country and have had the good fortune to be paid to see the world over my time. Have made many friends outside and have seen and experienced the respect people have for Canada which is something I take pride in and want to keep that and make Canada better.Quebec separating is not going to make it better.
All native groups in this land were the original inhabitants and need to be respected and recognized as such.Quebec and the French were one of the original settlers and their culture;their life must be recognized and respected.Debating the issue re Quebec is ok but insulting will not help our cause any at all. At the same point we must take care not to give in to what the separatists want. It will only devide this nation more and they know it.
Perhaps this will proffer some insight to the issue?
Only in Louisiana – you have to love this lawyer – It’s too good not to share!
Everyone who has ever bought a house will enjoy this.
A New Orleans lawyer sought an FHA loan for a client who lost his house in Hurricane Katrina and wanted to rebuild. He was told the loan would be granted if he could prove satisfactory title to the parcel of property being offered as collateral. The title to the property dated back to 1803, which took the Lawyer three months to track down. After
sending the information to the FHA, he received the following reply:
(Actual letter):
“Upon review of your letter adjoining your client’s loan application, we note that the request is supported by an Abstract of Title. While we compliment the able manner in which you have prepared and presented the application, we must point out that you have only cleared title to the proposed collateral property back to 1803. Before final approval can be accorded, it will be necessary to clear the title back to its origin.”
Annoyed, the lawyer responded as follows:
(Actual Letter):
“Your letter regarding title in Case No. 189156 has been received. I note that you wish to have title extended further than the 194 years covered by the present application. I was unaware that any educated person in this country, particularly those working in the property area, would not know that Louisiana was purchased, by the U.S. from France in
1803, the year of origin identified in our application. For the edification of uninformed FHA bureaucrats, the title to the land prior to U.S. ownership was obtained from France , which had acquired it by Right of Conquest from Spain. The land came into the possession of Spain by Right of Discovery made in the year 1492 by a sea captain named Christopher Columbus, who had been granted the privilege of seeking a
new route to India by the Spanish monarch, Isabella.
The good queen, Isabella, being a pious woman and almost as careful about titles as the FHA, took the precaution of securing the blessing of the Pope before she sold her jewels to finance Columbus’ expedition. Now the Pope, as I sure you may know, is the emissary of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. And God, it is commonly accepted, created this world.
Therefore, I believe it is safe to presume that God also made that part of the world called Louisiana. God, therefore, would be the owner of origin and His origins date back
to before the beginning of time, the world as we know it AND the FHA.
I hope you find God’s original claim to be satisfactory. Now, may we have our loan?”
He got the loan.
Garth, as I have asked earlier and you refuse to post and censor me. But tell me as your constituent what your position on the Bloc and its motion to bring down the government is?
Do you support the mission as is?
If you do not why? What do you think should change, and what actions should be taken?
These are legitimate questions stop suppressing them. If you continue to censor me while advertising this forum as center of digital democracy, I will be writing to some media sources next. I am sure they will have an interest in this hypocritical behavior given the bold statements and positions you have taken against your party and on citizen oriented democracy.
I emailed you privately yesterday, and said: “Your posts are valued, as is your opinion. I will be happy to publish your remarks any time they are framed in respectful language, and when you reveal your identity.” You did not respond to my note, but continue to try to get posts published here, and now you are threatening me “by writing to some media sources.” Well, Trueconservative, knock yourself out. I will not be intimidated or bullied by you, and you will not be allowed to post disrespctful and non-constructive comments just because you feel like dumping on others. — Garth