House passes motion recognizing Quebecois as nation

[hammond]

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

he House of Commons has overwhelmingly passed a motion recognizing Québécois as a nation within Canada.

Conservatives, most Liberal MPs, the NDP and the Bloc voted 266 to 16 in support of the controversial motion, which earlier in the day had prompted the resignation of Michael Chong as intergovernmental affairs minister.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had introduced the surprise motion on Nov. 22, raising the ante on a Bloc Québécois motion that sought to declare Quebecers a nation without reference to Canada.

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

The prime minister has said he is using the word nation in a "cultural-sociological" rather than a legal sense.

The nationhood idea has preoccupied Ottawa since the Bloc proposed a motion  calling on the House to recognize Quebecers as a nation and Harper made a counter-proposal to define Québécois as a nation within Canada.
Continue Article

Over the following two days, the Bloc first amended its motion to say that they are a nation "currently within Canada" — leaving the door open to independence — and then declared its support for the government motion.

Liberal leadership hopefuls Gerard Kennedy and Ken Dryden announced on Monday that they opposed the motion.

Following his resignation, Chong said he could not support recognizing Québécois as a nation, even inside a united Canada, because that "implies the recognition of ethnicity.

"I do not believe in an ethnic nationalism. I believe in a civic nationalism."



What exactly does this mean?

 

[career_radio-checker]

It means you can chalk one up for political correctness on 'The Hill.'

I think this contributes to the mysterious headache illness people get as they pass by Parliament Hill. Ottawans will probably agree that there are certain 'zones' around Parliament that increase the pain level of your headaches as you get closer to Parliament.

ZONE 3: approx 2 km from the hill you get a slight sensation in the forehead. Pinch forehead and carry on with your business.

ZONE 2: approx 1 km from the hill you get throbbing sensation in the frontal and rear lobe of your cranium. Take a few minutes to get barrings   
            straight.

ZONE 1: extending from Wellington to Sussex and all the way back to Gatineau you will experience extreme pain and even nausea. Do not
            venture here unless you have taken at least 4 capsules of Extra-strength Tylenol... even if the maximum dossage recomended is 2.
            Note: Zone one is known to pop up around the NDHQ building without warning. Venture there at your own risk.

sorry I can't answer your post with a serious answer, I just see it as another ludicrous political move that draws attention away from more important affairs like.. oh I don't know... MANAGING A COUNTRY!

 

[hammond]

LOL No worries. I'm just lost, that the media is already calling Canada, United Canada. But essentially, this "nation" is only symbolic... If the Quebecois can be identified as a "nation", what about others such as Aboriginals? I am at least 14hrs away from parliament hill and i am getting a headache

 

[Synthos]

This is total B.S.

We are ONE country, one group of people.

Saying quebecois is a nation pisses me right off. This is only sparking the seperatist notions again. ARGH! How could SO many cabinet members vote for this?! How?!

 

[FredDaHead]

I find it rather funny to compare the difference between the Anglo (ROC) and Franco (Quebec) reaction. It seems the Rest Of Canada makes a much bigger deal out of it than Quebec does. Many Quebecois are of the opinion that "Quebec already considered itself a nation, (we) don't need an Albertan to tell us what we are." By contrast, it seems Anglos are freaking out and almost with Lutherian zeal proclaiming that the Devil is in Ottawa. (Sorry, just got out of a Lit class and we talked about the Reform)

 

[mjohnston39]

We are ONE country, one group of people.

The federal gov. has already passed a resolution that recognized Quebec as a distinct society (after the last referendum). I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a time when Canada has existed as a country with one single people, in effect this resolution simply states the obvious...

This is only sparking the seperatist notions again.

Sorry, but separatist notions have already been raging in Quebec, especially after the sponsorship scandal came to light...

 

[CrazyCanuck]

I remember reading recently that the Quebecois didn't like the term "distinct society" to them this might just be another 'empty' motion, which infact is all it is

 

[exsemjingo]

(I)t seems Anglos are freaking out and almost with Lutheran zeal

What kind of zeal now?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here is an excellent piece by Prof. Tom Courchene (Queen’s) in today’s Globe and Mail (web exclusive comment); as always it is reproduced here under the fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061201.wcomment1201/BNStory/National/home

Sir John A. would not be surprised
THOMAS COURCHENE

Special to Globe and Mail Update

Whereas Canadians outside Quebec (henceforth ROC, for Rest of Canada) tend to look to Ottawa as the embodiment of both nation and state, most Quebeckers view Quebec as their nation and Canada as their state. This is the reality within which to assess Prime Minister Harper's motion that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.”

Quebec nationalists (federalists and otherwise) have come to realize that sovereignty in the 21st century relates primarily to the ability of a society to decide how its people ought to live and work and play. This is what nation means to Quebeckers, and in decentralized Canada the ability to achieve these aspirations rests with the powers assigned to the provinces under the Constitution.

Therefore, enhancing Quebec's ability to exercise these powers is the way to recognize the Quebec nation within a united Canada. In turn, this requires two things: circumscribing the exercise of the federal spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction; and redressing the vertical and horizontal fiscal imbalance so Quebec has the resources needed to implement these powers.

Our federation has been moving in this very direction in significant ways. One of these was the 1997 Calgary Declaration, which contained a formal recognition that “the legislature and the Government of Quebec have a role to protect and develop the unique character of Quebec society within Canada.” Not only did all ROC premiers sign this declaration, but it was also passed by all ROC provincial legislatures, often with considerable fanfare.

Fast forward to July of 2004 and the meeting of the Council of the Federation. The council proposed that Ottawa take over pharmacare, with the unanimous proviso that Quebec would continue to run its own program, replete with comparable federal financial support. Two months later, at the first ministers health summit, the unanimous health accord embodied an asymmetric Canada-Quebec addendum that recognized Quebec's distinctiveness in this regard. In tandem, these represent formal recognition of Quebec's distinctiveness within the Canadian family.

It is with respect to this constellation of issues — symbolic recognition of Quebec's status, recognition of Quebec's areas of sovereignty within the Constitution, and limiting the exercise of the federal spending power (at least with respect to Quebec if the ROC is not interested) — that the designation of Quebec as a nation will come into play.

But this recognition of Quebec is also likely to have a profound influence on the Rest of Canada, again in ways that are not often recognized. When Quebec established its own personal income tax in the 1950s and the Quebec Pension Plan in the 1960s (among other areas), the ROC response was always that Quebec was “opting out.” But these are provincial powers! The reality surely is that the ROC was “opting in” to create with Ottawa a more uniform ROC. The misnomer of “opting out” is one of the reasons that the issue of asymmetry created major problems for Quebec. The truth was, the ROC was seeking special status, while Quebec was just exercising its constitutional powers.

Intriguingly, this move toward uniformity in the ROC is exactly what Sir John A. Macdonald and his Confederation colleagues anticipated would happen, and it is why they inserted Section 94 into the BNA Act. Section 94 is essentially an “opt-in” formula that allows the ROC (without Quebec) to unify (i.e., transfer to Ottawa) aspects of “property and civil rights.” Were such a process of unifying policy areas always to require bringing Quebec along, then the ROC's societal objectives would more or less continuously be stymied.

In a non-constitutional way, this was what the pharmacare proposal was all about — all provinces except Quebec were opting in, or transferring powers to Ottawa, à la Section 94, to create a more uniform ROC program. Hence, one of the implications of designating Quebec as a nation will be to revive the spirit of Section 94, thereby releasing the Rest of Canada from its traditional requirement to compromise with Quebec with respect to the creation of more uniform pan-ROC policies. And it appears that the ROC is much more willing than is Quebec to unify certain policy areas such as health, early childhood development, postsecondary education, cities and the like.

By recognizing Quebec as a nation within a united Canada, the rest of us will have more ability, should we so wish, to draw on Ottawa to help us create our own preferred vision of our nation. And because our policy preferences and values are, at base, quite close to nos amis québécois, this is likely to be a win-win game and, I would expect, also a converging one.

Thomas J. Courchene is senior scholar at the Montreal-based Institute for Research on Public Policy and the Jarislowsky-Deutsch Professor of Economic and Financial Policy at Queen's University.

While many scholars argue, correctly I think, that the Fathers of Confederation, mindful of the horrors of the just completed US Civil War, wanted a strong, central government, the constitution they agreed, the BNA Act of 1867, resulted in one of the most decentralized confederations in the world.  It wasn’t planned that way, it’s just how it is.

Stephen Harper should, in my not at all humble opinion do what the constitution requires (and, I believe he agrees) and decentralize further.  There is too much federal intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction – into the business of the partners in Confederation, including the nations of Canada.

The feds should do what a substantial majority of Canadians do not want:

1. Get out of areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction – transferring tax points as they leave.  Provinces wishing to establish multi-provincial agencies, an Atlantic Canada Fisheries Agency, for example, should be free to do so;

2. Continue to offer some, lesser, equalization - sufficient to allow poorer provinces to bring a basket of ‘essential’ social service (mostly health care and pension) delivery standards up to a national average – not, necessarily, to the average of Alberta + Ontario; and

3. Focus exclusive federal attention on attention on areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction – much the annoyance of a majority of Québecers.  But, allowing provinces to deal exclsuively with resources means that, as with fish in the US, for example, provinces may have to deal internationally.

Only by annoying all Canadians will the government get it right.


Edit: added link

 

[The_Falcon]

Maybe this is just me, but the other day I realized that this is really all much ado about nothing and that we really shouldn't get all bent out of shape over this "nation within a nation business".  Why, you ask?  Well its really quite simple.  Pull out your globe or atlas (or for you more tech savy types, fire up google earth), now zip across the Atlantic Ocean to the United Kingdom.  Now look carefully at the UK, what do you see?  Whats that, you see four nations (Wales, England, Scotland, N. Ireland) operating under the banner of one larger nation (being the United Kingdom).  All have their own parliament (well the English Parliament and UK Parliament are one and the same), and even though their powers are roughly equivalent to that of province, that still does not prevent people from referring to themselves as from Scotland/Scottish, Wales/Welsh, England/English, as opposed to the more general Brittish.  Heck even at world events (think soccer) you will still see seperate "National" teams.  They (meaning everyone in the UK) seem to be able to live with this arrangement of smaller nations, withing a greater united nation (the UK not the UN), so why can't we?

Thats my two pence.

 

[NL_engineer]

I am discusted after reading this.  I know that it is no great significance; but it brings Quebec one step closer to there goal of separation.  IMO the Government should cut the equalization to Quebec in half (or stop it alltogether), and start spending the money in other provinces.

I'm going to leave it at that before I say something I am going to regret.

 

[exsemjingo]

...it brings Quebec one step closer to there goal of separation.  IMO the Government should cut the equalization to Quebec in half (or stop it all together).

Some people in Western Canada think these two scenarios go together nicely, and they don't all like in Eckville

 

[exsemjingo]

Some people in Western Canada think these two scenarios go together nicely, and they don't all live in Eckville

Wit doesn't work with typo's.

 

[STONEY]

Not to be outdone Cape Breton is talking about Nation status also. Aren't native american tribes refered to as Nations. Get A life.!!

 

[CrazyCanuck]

I believe Cape Breton is talking about just "Provincial" status, as they see themselves as largely ignored in there current one, same thing is happening in western Ontario. The drive to become a province in Cape Breton is also substantially smaller than the movement in Quebec.